Colorado Baker Sued for Refusing Gender Transition Cake

[Possum]

Doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

He's playing a part, playing the tool for communist rule. They think if they can break us, we'll give in and give up.
He knows exactly what and why he advocates for sexual perversions, he knows it is the fabric that holds society together.
He's also a communist hiding behind the LIBertarian banner/party, which the Marxists took over nearly a decade ago.

Truth is, he is paid to distract us from the real damage being done by the NWO Communist movement, Musk and everyone exposing their corruption.
Hell, he may even be Chinese, considering he knows zero about our constitution and Founding Principles.

    He doesn't know it, but we're on to him.   He is doing his damnest to try to get someone claim we are the raciest ones.  Yet, looking over his comments it is pretty easy to spot the raciest.

It's absolutely his right to kick anyone out of his restaurant, for any reason.

I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

Marriage, as it relates to the state, isn't about gods, holy books, eternal damnation, etc. 

(I bet he knows by now marriage is a religious contract between a man and a woman.)

Allowing a racist business owner to deny a black person service isn't respectable or, to many, acceptable, but it's how things should be in a nation that respects private property rights and freedom to choose who you engage with

Nope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.]

Zen, show where the Government is required to discriminate. Have you ever read this, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?????

Zen, go back and read the court cases that deal with what you are proposing. They have set down precedent on what is legal and what is not. Solar did a great job outlining why you are so wrong in what you are proposing in order for a society to function. 

[Solar]

    He doesn't know it, but we're on to him.   He is doing his damnest to try to get someone claim we are the raciest ones.  Yet, looking over his comments it is pretty easy to spot the raciest. (I bet he knows by now marriage is a religious contract between a man and a woman.)
 Zen, show where the Government is required to discriminate. Have you ever read this, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?????

Zen, go back and read the court cases that deal with what you are proposing. They have set down precedent on what is legal and what is not. Solar did a great job outlining why you are so wrong in what you are proposing in order for a society to function. 

The little commie is just now understanding he chose the wrong forum to challenge on our God Given Rights.
He tries to equate the law as somehow being racist, thing is, most intelligent people know skin color plays no part in a functioning society.
Which is why I call myself a "Culturalist", (Yes, I coined the term decades ago) someone who despises people who try and divide us over race.

Zen is worse than a racist, he's trying to circumvent our 'fellowship as a nation' by backing the communist attempt at devolving.
I got his number. My guess is he's a Chinese communist living in Canada, paid to post on Conservative websites.

It's safe to say, China is failing miserably on this front.

[ZenMode]

Well, since you identify with communists, you just might understand this oine when he speaks about the US.


https://rumble.com/embed/v1xg1yy/?pub=17yzhh

Trying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?   

[Solar]

Trying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?   

Your need to back a societal perversion make you a communist!

[ZenMode]

Your need to back a societal perversion make you a communist!

Ok.  Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

[T Hunt]

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Why tho? Religion hasnt caused any problems by being in govt. There is only a very small group calling for gay marriage. Most gays dont even care about gay marriage. Having marriage be actual marriage as always defined hasnt caused any problems that need to be fixed. What benefit does gays getting married bring to the table to outweigh all the damages it does to society and the family?

I mean if its a proven fact that gays are happier not being gay but happier when healed then why are you trying to enable a bad dangerous behavior? Your freedom ends when it starts to harm others freedoms. You have the freedom to wave your arms around but not if you are hitting and assaulting people next to you. And again, freedom OF religion isnt freedom FROM religion.

[T Hunt]

there is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

Exactly right! He doesnt like the answer but instead of debating it he just rewords his initial premise and repeats it again instead of advancing the conversation. 

[T Hunt]

    He doesn't know it, but we're on to him.   He is doing his damnest to try to get someone claim we are the raciest ones.  Yet, looking over his comments it is pretty easy to spot the raciest. (I bet he knows by now marriage is a religious contract between a man and a woman.)
 Zen, show where the Government is required to discriminate. Have you ever read this, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?????

Zen, go back and read the court cases that deal with what you are proposing. They have set down precedent on what is legal and what is not. Solar did a great job outlining why you are so wrong in what you are proposing in order for a society to function. 

Right again possum. The constitution protects religious freedoms. Nowhere does it protect sexual anarchy.

[T Hunt]

Trying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now? 

You understand that the 1st amendment ALLOWS religion in govt right?

You get that the constitution itself literally denies you the specific equality you are looking for, dont you?

In fact the word equality isnt even in the constitution.  

[Possum]

Trying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now? 

It damn sure does. This country was founded on keeping the government out of religion, you advocate the opposite, you want no religion in government. Afraid morals will hurt you???

This statement

believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer

This is your attempt once again to twist what is being said. You have claimed you are for discrimination for any reason, that is not what a constitutional republic stands for. Remember these words, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? It is obvious you have no understanding as to their meaning. 


 

[T Hunt]

Ok. Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Please show us where that is in the constitution...what part of the constitution trumps the freedom of religion?

[Possum]

Exactly right! He doesnt like the answer but instead of debating it he just rewords his initial premise and repeats it again instead of advancing the conversation.

          I can't believe how much ink we are using on this one's education.

Let's start writing in cursive and really confuse him.

[Solar]

Ok.  Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

Your wanting to give govt the ability to write laws effecting society IS what makes you a communist!

[Possum]

Ok. Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

Sorry, that is not what you have been advocating. No where has anybody said people can not live their lives. You are advocating for religion to change the way marriage is defined, you are advocating for any type of discrimination. As a Christian I see many forms of sin, homosexuality is just one of them. I also see everyone who walks this earth is guilty of sin. Am I in favor of outlawing all of life? Of course not, but I also do not see the need to promote it, such as changing the laws and definition of marriage in order to allow two men to marry. Zen, this has been explained to you time and time again. Like T Hunt said, all you are doing is rephrasing the same bull crap in a different way in the hopes you will get a different response.  

[ZenMode]

Sorry, that is not what you have been advocating. No where has anybody said people can not live their lives. You are advocating for religion to change the way marriage is defined, you are advocating for any type of discrimination.

Redefine marriage?  I'm advocating for giving religion absolute freedom to determine who can get married in their flavor of Christianity.  Lutherans can do it however they want.  Methodists can do it however they want. I'm advocating for individual churches to be able to determine who can get married in their church, if they desire.  Some churches are already doing gay marriages.  I absolutely support their right to do that.

Why do you have an issue with that?