Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:16 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit Back to Topics
teacher_tim

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2014 9:36:39 PM

"A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
*******************************
Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.

“They are turning people of faith into religious refugees,” Martin told me. “Is this the society that we want to live in – where people of faith are driven out of business?”

Martin said it was “truly frightening” that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me he’s not going to create any new policies.

“My old ones are pretty adequate as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.”
link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,029
Points:2,314,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 2:53:18 AM

GTH: <<<"<<Actually, we have no idea why they chose this baker. For all we know they chose him to make an example out of him. But there is no evidence that other bakers are "substandard". To suggest otherwise, lacking such evidence, is BS.">>>

El Gato Negro: <<<"Since we lack such evidence then is not suggesting that the couple chose the baker to make an example out of him also BS?">>>

--Nah, there is evidence that this gay couple did indeed choose this baker in particular, as there was a gay lesbian couple angry about a custom cupcake order that this baker refused months earlier. Then later they set the baker up with a dog marriage cake, and then finished him off with the gay guy activists that are the subject of this thread. The story was written and published within hours of the incident (that I have linked to numerous times in this thread). Did the couple choose this baker to make an example out of him? Sure, you bet!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 1:57:33 AM

gas_too_high - "Whether the ordinance had an explicit religious exemption or not, it should be clear to anyone who can think clearly, that an explicit Constitutional right, such as the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, should trump any claimed implicit Constitutional right, such as the right to have one's lifestyle be eligible for the legal definition of marriage."

Except, of course, when that "free exercise of religion" is used simply to justify trampling on others' rights.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 1:53:50 AM

gas_too_high - "Jim Crow businesses serving blacks were an exception, precisely because blacks (unlike same-sex couples) had no choice."

Which appears to be what you want for same-sex couples. "Separate, but equal".

"Your attempt to change the subject is another tacit admission that I'm right, and behavior -- not "who they are" -- is the issue. The more you try to evade that issue, the more you concede it."

What evade? The issue is that there's no significant difference between the two behaviors, despite what your insistence otherwise. Your opposition to calling SSM "marriage" isn't based on any rational argument, just your prejudice against homosexuality.

"One who is wise knows when to follow tradition and when to discard it."

Which is why I support modifying this tradition slightly.

"And that one is not fooled by a false equivalency, such as comparing racial discrimination to treating different freely chosen lifestyles, differently."

Again, both are freely chosen, but both are based on innate characteristics, much as race is innate, and both provide the same benefits to society. So why should one freely chosen behavior be given special privileges and the other not? Particularly when that harms families and children.

"There are many fools today. You are determined, so it seems, to hold foolish positions."

No, I'm determined to oppose foolish positions. Which is one reason that I hold the positions I hold.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:31:19 PM

gas_too_high - "Despite the confusion redefiners are kicking up, there are still several facts that are essentially uncontested:"

Based on the link that rjhenn posted his response (and ignoring his accompanying BS), I'm willing to concede, based on additional facts, that this may not be a case of *intentional* religious discrimination. It may just be a case of an incompetent city attorney, or one shockingly unconcerned about First Amendment rights.

Even though he corrected himself, he should be fired.

Whether the ordinance had an explicit religious exemption or not, it should be clear to anyone who can think clearly, that an explicit Constitutional right, such as the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, should trump any claimed implicit Constitutional right, such as the right to have one's lifestyle be eligible for the legal definition of marriage.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:30:19 PM

rjhenn: "As usual, your only real argument is denial. If they chose this one baker, then they would appear to consider other bakers "substandard"."

There is a large difference between not being their first choice, and being "substandard." Substandard businesses generally don't stay in business. Jim Crow businesses serving blacks were an exception, precisely because blacks (unlike same-sex couples) had no choice.

GTH: "And they are. The differences are not based on "who they are" but on freely chosen behavior."

rjhenn: "Like marriage is "freely chosen behavior"?"

GTH: "Unless you are suggesting that people are being compelled to marry, then that is a tacit admission that freely chose behavior is in fact the issue."

rjhenn: "Yet you haven't been able to provide any substantial difference between one "freely chosen behavior" and the other."

Your attempt to change the subject is another tacit admission that I'm right, and behavior -- not "who they are" -- is the issue. The more you try to evade that issue, the more you concede it.

GTH: "Which arguments remain bogus, because race is incidental to marriage, while gender, and gender differences, are fundamental to it."

rjhenn: "In your opinion, not in reality. From the known facts, gender appears to be no more fundamental to marriage than race, even though "tradition" said different for some time."

One who is wise knows when to follow tradition and when to discard it.

And that one is not fooled by a false equivalency, such as comparing racial discrimination to treating different freely chosen lifestyles, differently.

There are many fools today. You are determined, so it seems, to hold foolish positions.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 4:22:53 PM

gas_too_high - "Here's some good news. A second Federal court is upholding the definition of marriage, this one in Puerto Rico."

Apparently reaching to support his own views on the subject.

IOW, the feared "activist judge".

"And the judge involved cited in support -- wait for it -- SCOTUS!"

Which probably means that SCOTUS will now have the opportunity to explicitly state that Baker v. Nelson is obsolete, and there now is a "substantial federal question".

It seems clear that, with the constitutional issues raised in Baker v. Nelson, that there was a "substantial federal question", but SCOTUS simply didn't want to deal with it at the time.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 11:55:19 AM

gas_too_high - "Despite the confusion redefiners are kicking up, there are still several facts that are essentially uncontested:"

Except that all of them are the typical "we're being discriminated against" BS we usually see from bigots.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/24/2014 11:56:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 11:54:25 AM

gas_too_high - "Actually, we have no idea why they chose this baker. For all we know they chose him to make an example out of him. But there is no evidence that other bakers are "substandard". To suggest otherwise, lacking such evidence, is BS."

As usual, your only real argument is denial. If they chose this one baker, then they would appear to consider other bakers "substandard".

"Unless you are suggesting that people are being compelled to marry, then that is a tacit admission that freely chose behavior is in fact the issue."

Yet you haven't been able to provide any substantial difference between one "freely chose behavior" and the other.

Unless YOU are suggesting that people are being compelled to marry.

"Which arguments remain bogus, because race is incidental to marriage, while gender, and gender differences, are fundamental to it."

In your opinion, not in reality. From the known facts, gender appears to be no more fundamental to marriage than race, even though "tradition" said different for some time.

In both cases.

And I see you're returning to your largely fictional "gender differences" argument.

"Your denials notwithstanding. Reality takes no notice of your denials."

Precisely why your arguments make no sense.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,752
Points:4,256,010
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 8:48:28 AM

"They bear no resemblance to reality."

An apt description of nearly all of gas_too_high's repeated arguments.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 8:46:07 AM

"Uncontested? They bear no resemblance to reality."

Correct. That won't stop bigots from trying to spin the story as such anyway... Just more Fear Mongering.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,810
Points:772,000
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 7:55:12 AM

<<Actually, we have no idea why they chose this baker. For all we know they chose him to make an example out of him. But there is no evidence that other bakers are "substandard". To suggest otherwise, lacking such evidence, is BS.>> gas_too_high

Since we lack such evidence then is not suggesting that the couple chose the baker to make an example out of him also BS?

But that does not seem to have stopped you from spreading it liberally.

<<
Your denials notwithstanding. Reality takes no notice of your denials.>>

Since the law has stated that it was discrimination that means that your denials notwithstanding, reality takes no notice of them either.
Profile Pic
IammeCA
Veteran Author Ventura

Posts:482
Points:179,725
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 12:45:52 AM

It did work but only because they ordained in a "standard" denomination and not an Ordination Mill.(Yes they exist.)

They were involved in full time missions service (including working with the military chaplaincy) but not one that rated draft exempt status. Some churches felt that what they were doing was as valuable as the various services that were exempt and so ordained them to extend that exemption.

"It seems like the US military needed clergy during the Vietnam expedition."

To the best of my knowledge the military never conscripted Chaplains, as it was felt that such a service should be a calling. (I'm not 100% sure on that but I am fairly certain that ordained ministers were 4F as of the Vietnam Era.)

Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,393
Points:3,201,505
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 11:43:42 PM

" I knew a couple guys who got ordained to avoid the draft back in the late 60's. "

Did that work or them? It seems like the US military needed clergy during the Vietnam expedition.
Profile Pic
IammeCA
Veteran Author Ventura

Posts:482
Points:179,725
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 6:31:21 PM

"there are still several facts that are essentially uncontested:"

Uncontested? They bear no resemblance to reality.

"- There is an ordinance in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, requiring those authorized to perform wedding ceremonies, to perform same-sex ceremonies under threat of fines and jail time."

What? Your kidding right. From the article:
"The law, adopted in 2013, prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity to be used as a basis for discrimination in housing, employment and other public accommodations."

"- This ordinance applies to religious ministers. (It is not clear that it does *not* apply to ministers working for a non-profit organization, even if the city declines to prosecute)."

The ordinance applies to to everyone who runs a business providing public accommodations regardless of their clerical status. If an ordained minister ran a hotel does that mean he can refuse rooms to gays because he is ordained? I knew a couple guys who got ordained to avoid the draft back in the late 60's.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 6:04:18 PM

Here's some good news. A second Federal court is upholding the definition of marriage, this one in Puerto Rico.

And the judge involved cited in support -- wait for it -- SCOTUS!

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 6:00:44 PM

weaselspit: "Interesting how gth ignored the facts presented to him regarding his over-dramatized account regarding a for-profit minister supposedly threated with jail time for not performing SS marriages..."

Despite the confusion redefiners are kicking up, there are still several facts that are essentially uncontested:

- There is an ordinance in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, requiring those authorized to perform wedding ceremonies, to perform same-sex ceremonies under threat of fines and jail time.

- This ordinance applies to religious ministers. (It is not clear that it does *not* apply to ministers working for a non-profit organization, even if the city declines to prosecute).

- The couple involved are Christian ministers who object to performing same-sex "weddings."

It should be clear that, if there is even a question that this ordinance could be used against them, their First Amendment rights are being violated -- the very thing that redefiners have insisted would "never" happen. And yet, when it seems it is happening, we get, not angry outcries against this local city, but quibbling and trying to confuse the issue.

I never believed those statements anyway. But I confess it came faster than I expected.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 10/23/2014 6:01:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 6:00:06 PM

gas_too_high - "Exactly. Those business were substandard, and whites would not patronize them. Utterly unlike the same-sex couple who could have gotten their cake from almost any other baker, one that also baked cakes for marriages as traditionally defined."

rjhenn: "And they thought that this baker was the best one for what they wanted. So you want to force them to a 'substandard' business. One that would allow them to patronize it."

Actually, we have no idea why they chose this baker. For all we know they chose him to make an example out of him. But there is no evidence that other bakers are "substandard". To suggest otherwise, lacking such evidence, is BS.

GTH: "And they are. The differences are not based on "who they are" but on freely chosen behavior."

rjhenn: "Like marriage is "freely chosen behavior"?"

Unless you are suggesting that people are being compelled to marry, then that is a tacit admission that freely chose behavior is in fact the issue.

GTH: "But there is discrimination when others are forced to treat those different things the same. That goes for Christian ministers, cake bakers, anyone."

rjhenn: "Which again goes back to the same arguments about race and inter-racial marriage."

Which arguments remain bogus, because race is incidental to marriage, while gender, and gender differences, are fundamental to it.

Your denials notwithstanding. Reality takes no notice of your denials.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 10/23/2014 6:04:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,393
Points:3,201,505
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 5:13:33 PM

"And yet, the Supreme Court, in the Hobby Lobby decision, did not make that distinction."

The SCOTUS also tried to pretend in the majority ruling that its decision would not have a widespread impact on business. We shall see.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 2:56:04 PM

sgm4law - "And yet, the Supreme Court, in the Hobby Lobby decision, did not make that distinction. If you believe, you can do what you want."

Not quite the same thing. One involves turning away customers, the other employee benefits.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 2:55:10 PM

gas_too_high - "Exactly. Those business were substandard, and whites would not patronize them. Utterly unlike the same-sex couple who could have gotten their cake from almost any other baker, one that also baked cakes for marriages as traditionally defined."

And they thought that this baker was the best one for what they wanted. So you want to force them to a 'substandard' business. One that would allow them to patronize it.

"Because it's not. As you full well know, but obstinately refuse to acknowledge."

Yet your only argument for that is "procreation", which has been refuted many times, but which you "obstinately refuse to acknowledge."

"Reality doesn't bow to your stubbornness."

Or yours.

"And they are. The differences are not based on "who they are" but on freely chosen behavior."

Like marriage is "freely chosen behavior"?

"When different things like freely chosen lifestyles are treated differently in accordance with those differences, there is no discrimination."

And when functionally identical things, like two slightly different committed monogamous relationships, that both involve caring for the partner and can, but don't necessarily, involve raising children, are treated differently for no good reason, there is discrimination.

"But there is discrimination when others are forced to treat those different things the same. That goes for Christian ministers, cake bakers, anyone."

Which again goes back to the same arguments about race and inter-racial marriage.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:21:11 AM

<<"Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.">>

And yet, the Supreme Court, in the Hobby Lobby decision, did not make that distinction. If you believe, you can do what you want.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,135
Points:751,075
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:40:29 AM

sgm4law - "From Todd Starnes: 'Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.'"

rjhenn "Yes, if they're performing weddings for profit."

My GF's ex was "an ordained minister". Apparently he got his ordination not from going to a seminary or school of divinity but through a mail order course. He never, ever preached in a church and yet he was ordained and could legally perform marriages.

Not saying that that's the sort of 'ordination' that the person in TD's link had, but it does call into question the whole premise that he and GTH are trying (and once again failing) to make.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:39:52 AM

Interesting how gth ignored the facts presented to him regarding his over-dramatized account regarding a for-profit minister supposedly threated with jail time for not performing SS marriages...

SMH
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,393
Points:3,201,505
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 12:05:25 AM

This is what the local Idaho newspaper site had to say about the wedding mill as of Oct. 21:

"Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion."

Legal hitch at Hitching Post
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 7:54:09 PM

rjhenn: 'Not so. In the Jim Crow South, there were businesses that catered to "black folks". It was "separate, but (un)equal".'

Exactly. Those business were substandard, and whites would not patronize them. Utterly unlike the same-sex couple who could have gotten their cake from almost any other baker, one that also baked cakes for marriages as traditionally defined.

"Why, when their 'institution' is a marriage in everything but the name you want to allow it?"

Because it's not. As you full well know, but obstinately refuse to acknowledge.

Reality doesn't bow to your stubbornness.

GTH: ""However, instead of simply wanting to be left alone, practicing homosexuals seem to want affirmation, so much so that they can't stand any perceived denial of that affirmation -- such as being refused a 'wedding cake.'"

rjhenn: "Being treated the same as everybody else would be being "left alone"."

And they are. The differences are not based on "who they are" but on freely chosen behavior.

When different things like freely chosen lifestyles are treated differently in accordance with those differences, there is no discrimination.

But there is discrimination when others are forced to treat those different things the same. That goes for Christian ministers, cake bakers, anyone.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:41:34 PM

sgm4law - "From Todd Starnes: 'Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.'"

Yes, if they're performing weddings for profit.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:40:07 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Almost everything in your "Almost Everything You've Been Told About The Idaho Wedding Chapel Story Is A Lie" story is a lie."

Exactly what is a lie?

"Coeur d’Alene Idaho Officials Tell Ministers To Marry Same Sex Couples Or Face Fines/Jail"

Apparently nothing in Weasle's link is a lie, since your link doesn't directly contradict any of it with actual facts, just "lies and propaganda".

And it's a for-profit business, not a true religious enterprise.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,368
Points:2,800,545
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:38:56 PM

gas_too_high - "Of course, exaggerated arguments are also made by some of a more liberal persuasion, who apparently believe those arguments..."

Exactly which "exaggerated arguments" do you have in mind. Or does that describe anything that doesn't agree with your "exaggerated arguments"?

"Apparently he was, based on the reaction he got from the couple. They could easily have gone elsewhere and gotten their "wedding cake," with a minimum of hassle (unlike the Jim Crow South, BTW)."

Not so. In the Jim Crow South, there were businesses that catered to "black folks". It was "separate, but (un)equal".

Which appears to be your stance on SSM.

"Since the homosexual lifestyle is so obviously different, one might think that practitioners of that lifestyle would build their own institutions, instead of trying to co-opt the mainstream normative institution of marriage."

Why, when their 'institution' is a marriage in everything but the name you want to allow it?

And how is it "obviously different". If you ignore the physical sexes of the individuals involved, in many cases you can't tell the difference.

"However, instead of simply wanting to be left alone, practicing homosexuals seem to want affirmation, so much so that they can't stand any perceived denial of that affirmation -- such as being refused a 'wedding cake.'"

Being treated the same as everybody else would be being "left alone". Instead, you want to separate them off into their own little enclaves.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,306
Points:3,831,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:37:43 PM

Christian ministers threatened with fines and jail for refusing to perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies.

So much for the denials of marriage redefiners that this would never happen."

This would be pretty serious if it involved the Church, but we are talking of a commercial enterprise, a wedding business at The Hitching Post, not a non-profit religious establishment.

So much for silly sensationalism.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 11:17:13 AM

From Todd Starnes: "Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings."

Oh, come on, that can't possibly be the worst fear of a Fox contributor. Ha!
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 11:15:42 AM

Don't worry, the Supreme Court will reach down and say, it's ok, even if you are a for-profit business, someone in your company has religious views that allow them to deny marriage equality. No prob!

It will be interesting to see how much "religious views" will start to distort what people, er corporations, are no longer "forced" to do.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 11:10:57 AM

Weazy:

Almost everything in your "Almost Everything You've Been Told About The Idaho Wedding Chapel Story Is A Lie" story is a lie.

Coeur d’Alene Idaho Officials Tell Ministers To Marry Same Sex Couples Or Face Fines/Jail

You might want to stop parroting lies and propaganda from left wingnut websites and properly research the issues.

[Edited by: Troller_Diesel at 10/22/2014 11:12:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 8:58:40 AM

Christian ministers threatened with fines and jail for refusing to perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies.

So much for the denials of marriage redefiners that this would never happen."

So much for properly researching an issue and instead parroting lies and propaganda from the Right;

Almost Everything You've Been Told About The Idaho Wedding Chapel Story Is A Lie

;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 8:57:19 AM

"I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who starts new topics here in the US Politics category very soon after opening their current GB account. It seems far more common for true newbies to GB to post fuel prices for a number of months before ever participating in the forums, let alone starting new topics."

Agreed.
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,393
Points:3,201,505
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:34:19 AM

""Hetero joinings are normal and not an addiction"
I am addicted to the opposite sex."

Quite a few of the homophobes seem to be blinded to the fact that most people are seemingly addicted to some category or another of people. It's the way we're wired. Unless we're bisexual, we don't need some religion to tell us who we want to have a romantic relationship with -- it's already in our DNA.
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,393
Points:3,201,505
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:25:33 AM

"I think that can only happen if the mods have banned him."

I expect Buzz will be back at some point under a new screen name. That's what we've seen happen here a number of times before with those who appear to have a bee in their bonnet.

I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who starts new topics here in the US Politics category very soon after opening their current GB account. It seems far more common for true newbies to GB to post fuel prices for a number of months before ever participating in the forums, let alone starting new topics.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,306
Points:3,831,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 11:04:42 PM

He insulted me in a most vile and vulgar manner. There is valid reason for Buzzie to lose priviledges.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/21/2014 11:05:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 11:04:31 PM

Christian ministers threatened with fines and jail for refusing to perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies.

So much for the denials of marriage redefiners that this would never happen.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 8:44:35 PM

rjhenn: " Again, his only reason for objecting to the sale is because they were gay."

GTH: "In your own opinion. Sorry, you need to do more, such as positively excluding all other possible reasons. All you do is assert that those reasons don't exist -- which the baker himself disproves, by stating his reason."

rjhenn: "You mean his diversion? How is that proof?"

GTH: "It is a plausible reason and is uncontradicted by anything you have offered. Therefore it suffices. (Your personal opinion does not suffice for proof.)"

rjhenn: "How is it plausible? Whether he baked the cake or not, he had no say in the marriage and wasn't being asked if he approved or not."

Apparently he was, based on the reaction he got from the couple. They could easily have gone elsewhere and gotten their "wedding cake," with a minimum of hassle (unlike the Jim Crow South, BTW).

Since the homosexual lifestyle is so obviously different, one might think that practitioners of that lifestyle would build their own institutions, instead of trying to co-opt the mainstream normative institution of marriage. However, instead of simply wanting to be left alone, practicing homosexuals seem to want affirmation, so much so that they can't stand any perceived denial of that affirmation -- such as being refused a "wedding cake."

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,143
Points:2,526,095
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 8:43:13 PM

quoted by sgm4law: "We're Sorry. We can not find member profile "BuzzLOL"

He was banned, not just banned from posting, but his account deleted.

Long overdue.

weaselspit: '"Yes, similar to TD and A1, he takes everything out of context and twists and spins it to something unrecognizable from what was actually said and meant."

While AnotherOne is sometimes over the top and Troller_Diesel a bit more so, Buzz the Troll was in a class by himself. I always suspected his exaggerated arguments were an attempt to discredit conservatives, including pro-family, pro-marriage conservatives.

Of course, exaggerated arguments are also made by some of a more liberal persuasion, who apparently believe those arguments...

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,135
Points:751,075
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 4:29:59 PM

I think that can only happen if the mods have banned him.

And yet, in this thread on Oct 20, 2014 3:52:04 PM, theTower said, "This conservative fights their own GB battles. Certain liberals will run home and cry to moddy"

Since Buzz was a liberal, it must have been conservatives who ran home and cried to the moddy.

Seems to be a bit of a disconnect again between what conservatives say and what they do.


[Edited by: BabeTruth at 10/21/2014 4:30:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:09:20 PM

<<It had to happpen sooner or later. He went too far!>>

<<We're Sorry.
We can not find member profile "BuzzLOL".>>

Well, I can still see his posts....but if I click on his profile, I get that message. Weird.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 10/21/2014 3:10:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,306
Points:3,831,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:07:11 PM

It had to happpen sooner or later. He went too far!

We're Sorry.
We can not find member profile "BuzzLOL".
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:05:12 PM

"Yes, similar to TD and A1, he takes everything out of context and twists and spins it to something unrecognizable from what was actually said and meant."

Yep. TD is also on my list...
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,135
Points:751,075
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 11:51:27 AM

BuzzLOL "Rumbleseat confesses to being a rapist"

rumbleseat "Buzzie, you are disgusting!"

Weaslespit "Hence his residence on my iggy list."

Yes, similar to TD and A1, he takes everything out of context and twists and spins it to something unrecognizable from what was actually said and meant.

Perhaps he on a slightly higher level though. He's not quite as childish.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,135
Points:751,075
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 11:44:46 AM

I wonder how GTH and his fellow Catholics are going to handle the results from the new General Assembly of the Synod od Bishops as time goes on?

Not all that long ago priests used to say that homosexuality was "a sin" and "a grave depravity" which of course resulted in gays and lesbians being marginalized as we can see from what GTH and others say here. Some people even took that as a green light to physically harm homosexuals or at least discriminate against them like the baker did.

But now we see the Church saying that "gay couples provide mutual aid to each other" and "precious support in the life of the partners".

Sounds like the ideal of marriage, doesn't it?

The door has been opened by the new pope and it cannot be closed again.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 11:08:55 AM

"Buzzie, you are disgusting!"

Hence his residence on my iggy list.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,306
Points:3,831,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 10:46:37 AM

"Rumbleseat confesses to being a rapist"

Buzzie, you are disgusting!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:21:07 AM

"IOW, it isn't really that you're defending "marriage", it's just that you're opposed to homosexuality."

Bingo.

"Probably equally unimpressed when the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts backed up that decision."

Just not paying attention - the head-in-the-sand approach keeps that bubble intact.

"How is it plausible? Whether he baked the cake or not, he had no say in the marriage and wasn't being asked if he approved or not."

Capitalism isn't capitalism when it is convenient to redefine commerce as needed to support one's agenda. Renting out a room for a reception to celebrate a SS wedding doesn't mean that the hall owner supports SS marriage - it means they support themselves. Renting out tuxedos and other garments to be used in a SS wedding doesn't mean that the owner of that rental shop supports SS marriage - it means he wants to make a living.

SMH

All this baker showed is that he would prefer to cut off his nose to spite his face.

Then again, bigotry is a powerful emotion... It has caused many irrational actions throughout our history.
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,661
Points:2,118,060
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 7:09:29 AM

Find out whoare the crooked judges and vote them out!

Look how politicians and judges rule on the life issue-all rights follow that...
Post a reply Back to Topics