Colorado Baker Sued for Refusing Gender Transition Cake

[Sick Of Silence]

You know, if customers would have just quietly asked for pink cake with blue frosting, most people wouldn't have cared about it. They would have just thought it was a weird cake. It's just food coloring and cake is only as good as how their made.

But, no. People just want to continuously push sexuality on the public. Nobody cares if you take it in the ass. Keep your personal life to yourself. That's why it is personal.

[ZenMode]

Does that include that scared Wrong. American society never thought slavery was ok. The founders were open about being against it from the beginning. You are spreading misinformation. The only ones who thought it was ok were the progressive democrats, and the GOP trounced them.  Medically it is ok, what are you talking about? Black 12 year olds routinely have sex and get pregnant in the inner cities. Guess you just dont want them to be married for security beforehand. How mean of you.

The only reason the age was raised is due to the lack of maturity among teenagers for a few generations. Again, that was just the democrats, not most of America. Specific sex acts are STILL not allowed. Bestiality comes to mind. So are cousins. Both of which you inexplicably discriminate against....Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence. As recently as the 80s there were laws allowing a cheating husband to kill his wife and lover if found in bed together. Even afterwards husbands that do still only get like a year or two at most. So yes, society still agrees with the bible overall. Actually there hasnt been any evolution in morality. As I just proved morality has been objective and the same since ancient biblical times. The bible always has the moral high ground.

"Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence."

Lol....

No, thats not allowed under the 1st Amendment because legally recognizing strait civil unions as equal with gay civil unions redefines marriage for christians. Unconstitutional. Biology matters.

How? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

[T Hunt]

"Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence."

Lol....

Well considering that it was only recently illegal and those who do only get a year in jail it would seem I am proven correct, unless you have some counter evidence....

How? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

I already explained.
If the govt legally recognizes kids marrying stuffed animals then I also have to recognize that since I am part of govt as all of us are.
We all vote and are all part of the same legal system with the same legal definitions.
Changing the definition for one person changes it for everyone.

[taxed]

Nope, I don't want anyone forced to do anything.  I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.  However, I think personal beliefs, politics etc should be kept out of business.  Part of being an adult in the business world, is being able to deal with difficult situations and difficult people professionally.  Again, there's no magical ingredients in a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  There is literally NOTHING preventing a Christian baker from making the cake except feelings.  Hence the "grow up".

He's not "grown up" if he doesn't want to engage in gay porn, like drawing penises on a cake?

[taxed]

Lol.... How? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

It wouldn't.  They wouldn't be marriages, like two pillow-biters getting married.  Commies may call it marriage, but it's not real marriage.

They shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either.  It's just not natural.

[ZenMode]

Well considering that it was only recently illegal and those who do only get a year in jail it would seem I am proven correct, unless you have some counter evidence....
I already explained.

There are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.

If the govt legally recognizes kids marrying stuffed animals then I also have to recognize that since I am part of govt as all of us are.
We all vote and are all part of the same legal system with the same legal definitions.
Changing the definition for one person changes it for everyone.

What does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

[taxed]

There are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.  What does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

With these new "libertarians", sodomy is a hill they'll die protecting.

[T Hunt]

There are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.

Actually it anal sex does have some dangers associated with it. But im sure that law was due to gays.

Besides, whats unconstitutional about something being illegal because of God? We only make murder illegal due to religious influence. Atheistic countries end up allowing murders. Or what about rape? That also is only illegal due to religion.

 

What does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

I think you mean for Christians to recognize it. I mean that in the same way you say for the state to recognize it.

Think about the example of Kim Davis. There is a very real world example of someone being forced to recognize a different definition of marriage.

Since the government is made up mostly of Christians, the government has to define marriage as Christians do or risk violating their 1st amendment rights.

And thats just one example. If marriage was redefined by the govt it would unconstitutionally force Christians to recognize that redefinition across the legal spectrum. Say a gay couple was suing me. It would be unconstitutional to force me to recognize their civil union as part of a family unit.

So you can see why gay marriage will soon go the way of abortion. Its constitutionality was always suspect.

[ZenMode]

With these new "libertarians", sodomy is a hill they'll die protecting.

or maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

[ZenMode]

Actually it anal sex does have some dangers associated with it. But im sure that law was due to gays.

Besides, whats unconstitutional about something being illegal because of God? We only make murder illegal due to religious influence. Atheistic countries end up allowing murders. Or what about rape? That also is only illegal due to religion.

 I think you mean for Christians to recognize it. I mean that in the same way you say for the state to recognize it.

Think about the example of Kim Davis. There is a very real world example of someone being forced to recognize a different definition of marriage.

Since the government is made up mostly of Christians, the government has to define marriage as Christians do or risk violating their 1st amendment rights.

And thats just one example. If marriage was redefined by the govt it would unconstitutionally force Christians to recognize that redefinition across the legal spectrum. Say a gay couple was suing me. It would be unconstitutional to force me to recognize their civil union as part of a family unit.

So you can see why gay marriage will soon go the way of abortion. Its constitutionality was always suspect.

The the idea that freedom of religion means that you get to define legal relationship for the entire country is as un-American as saying that freedom of speech means that you get to force everyone to only say things that don't offend you.

[T Hunt]

or maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

Its not very libertarian of you to want to use the power of government to redefine marriage for everyone. In fact thats rather statist.

It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

Wrong.

or maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion
It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for it to be constitutional.

Corrected.

[ZenMode]

Its not very libertarian of you to want to use the power of government to redefine marriage for everyone. In fact thats rather statist.

Wrong.
Corrected.

You want to use the Constitution to force everyone to meet the Christian standards of marriage in order to have their relationship legally recognize. If I recall correctly, you also want to force anyone that wants to start a family to meet the requirements of Christian marriage. Your train of thought is disturbing to say the least.

[Possum]

or maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

Who on the right is trying to take away any rights? It was not the right that wanted to change the definition of marriage, it was the left. It was not the right that wanted to take God out of the marriage, again, it was the left. Your whole damn problem is you want to blame Christians for the damn mess marriage has become. We are not the ones with any problem with the historic definition of marriage, you are, Can you get it thru your head marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman? Where in the sam hell do you get the idea that the church has any power to define marriage on ANYBODY? That horse has left the barn. Do you not get it, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Go back and reread it, your whole damn argument is obsolete. Stop crying like a little kid on how the church is unamerican and not be nice and are trying to destroy the constitution, you are damn lying! It was the damn left who started this crap in the first place, ADMIT IT! Stop looking for someone to blame, it's people like you.

[Possum]

You want to use the Constitution to force everyone to meet the Christian standards of marriage in order to have their relationship legally recognize. If I recall correctly, you also want to force anyone that wants to start a family to meet the requirements of Christian marriage. Your train of thought is disturbing to say the least.

DAMN YOU DO NOT LEARN DO YOU? The definition of marriage existed long before there was a constitution, long before there was a Europe, long before there were any countries, the definition of marriage goes back to Genesis 2:24 and is mentioned through out the bible. The standard of marriage has ALWAYS been the same until the left decided gays should also be allowed to marry. Prove me wrong!

[ZenMode]

Who on the right is trying to take away any rights? It was not the right that wanted to change the definition of marriage, it was the left. It was not the right that wanted to take God out of the marriage, again, it was the left. Your whole damn problem is you want to blame Christians for the damn mess marriage has become. We are not the ones with any problem with the historic definition of marriage, you are, Can you get it thru your head marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman? Where in the sam hell do you get the idea that the church has any power to define marriage on ANYBODY? That horse has left the barn. Do you not get it, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Go back and reread it, your whole damn argument is obsolete. Stop crying like a little kid on how the church is unamerican and not be nice and are trying to destroy the constitution, you are damn lying! It was the damn left who started this crap in the first place, ADMIT IT! Stop looking for someone to blame, it's people like you.

DAMN YOU DO NOT LEARN DO YOU? The definition of marriage existed long before there was a constitution, long before there was a Europe, long before there were any countries, the definition of marriage goes back to Genesis 2:24 and is mentioned through out the bible. The standard of marriage has ALWAYS been the same until the left decided gays should also be allowed to marry. Prove me wrong!

It's not only the Left.  There are plenty on the right who support equality for gay couples.  As recently as 200-300 years ago, the view of "voter" was only white, male land owners. That has changed also and its a good thing. America, at least for most people, has a spirit of equality for all people, though you, T Hunt, etc clearly do not.