Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

The issue is the gaystapo is using the force of the government to force you to engage in homosexualist affirming speech.

 

Not really.

 

Actually, really.

 

So a black cake baker should be forced to bake a Klan cake saying kill all coloreds? A caucasian cake baker should be forced to bake cake from Farakhan and the New Black Panther Party that says murder all white babies? A Jewish cake baker should be forced to bake a cake that says the Holocaust was a hoax?

You don't see a problem with forcing people to engage in affirmative speech? The published goal of the powerful gaystapo is to not just criminalize dissent and take everything away from you if you engage in opposing speech, they seek to criminalize your refusal to affirm their chosen deviant, perverse, lifespan shortening sex lifestyle, and they admit it in their publications.

 

Writing words constitutes freedom of speech, baking a cake is engaging in commerce. Also, none of the groups you mentioned are protected classes, your analogy is a false dichotomy.

Baking a cake is not speech, it is commerce - one is protected the other is licensed and regulated. No one has been arrested for vocalizing against homosexuals. Emotional rhetoric.

 

Baking a wedding themed cake for two, three or more homosexuals is speech, no matter how badly you want to claim otherwise. Taking over a hundred thousand dollars from someone for refusing to engage in compelled speech is economic terrorism.

As to "protected classes", you just evidenced why homosexualists fabricated the "born gay" hoax.

In 1986 the pro-sodomy movement lost Bowers v. Hardwick; the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the rights of individual states to criminalize sodomy. The loss was devastating. Desperate, angry, and galvanized pro-sodomy activists learned that if they could make a compelling case that they were "born gay,” they could become eligible for “Minority Status” as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority Status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus legalizing sodomy. It must be noted however, that the Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:

1) Have suffered a long history of discrimination

2) Are powerless to help themselves as a community

3) Are born that way

The legalization of sodomy by way of “Minority Status” is the secret to understanding why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” in the late 1980’s and began to promote the Ulrichsian claim that people are "born gay.”

Wasting little time, homosexualists Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to "The Gay Agenda" entitled The Overhauling of Straight America. This article, which appeared in the pro-sodomy publication Guide in November of 1987, outlined a point-by-point strategy that could be used to convince “straight America” that men and women who develop same-sex attractions are born “gay.”

In the following year, 1988, a “War Conference” of 175 leading pro-sodomy activists, representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton,Virginia. The purpose of the conference according to Kirk and Madsen was to establish an official agenda for the newly conceived “gay” movement. At this “War Conference” pro-sodomy activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in "The Gay Agenda" and "The Overhauling of Straight America". The "born gay” hoax was born.

 

I.E. the horrors of the government protecting the rights of homosexual customers in exactly the same way that they protect Christian customers.....aka 'gaystapo' aka christostapo

 

You don't really even understand what public Accommodation laws do- and do not do.

The Klan is not a protected class- it isn't race, religion, national origin, gender (and in Oregon) sexual orientation. Anyone can refuse to bake a cake to a Klan member- no problem.

A white baker can refuse to bake a cake that says 'murder all white babies' but can't refuse to bake a cake for a customer because he is black(or gay)

A Jewish baker can refuse to bake a cake denying the holocaust because again- that has nothing to with the law.

The law that you are so clearly ignorant about requires business's to serve customers irregardless of their race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. It protects Christian customers in exactly the same way it protects gay customers.

Bigots objected to public accommodation laws when they were first enacted and Christians were required to serve blacks- and now bigots object to public accommodation laws because they have to serve gays.

 

You know when one uses infantile terms in a discussion it means no one will take the discussion seriously?

Also tends to make the one saying childish things, appear insane.

 

The ignorant, bigoted, aggressive powerful gaystapo understands that forcing one to engage in affirming speech is forced speech, which is precisely why they have repeatedly been caught refusing to bake traditional marriage cakes, and why they are specifically targeting Christian businesses for termination.

Readers, do you now see why the powerful gaystapo is using the Trojan Horse of "anti-discrimination" laws they get enacted so they can use the power of Big Government to tell you how to think, how to act, how to speak, what you can eat, and whose blood you must put into your body?

Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the creators of The Homosexual Agenda propaganda manifesto that homosexual sex zealots preach, thump, proselytize and recruit with instruct homosexual foot soldiers to downplay their vile sex acts and instead to take "anti-discrimination" as the theme, and here you see why that tactic is useful-they use it to force you to affirm their vile chosen sex acts lifestyle or take away your job, your house, your livelihood and your basic human and civil rights if you refuse to affirm them.

The powerful gaystapo refuses to just live and let live.

 

What a load of horse pucky.

Why do Conservatives believe that they have the right to police the bedrooms of America? Why do the bigots believe that they have the right to tell Americans what kind of sex consenting adults can have in the privacy of their home? Hell even Conservatives couldn't agree with that- Georgia's own courts struck down the same law Georgia sodomy law 12 years later.

The Civil Rights Act protected only specific groups from discrimination based upon- race, color, religion or national origin.

The Civil Rights Act protected anyone from discrimination based upon religion- including Christians- who have not suffered a long history of discrimination, are hardly powerless and certainly are not born that way.

What you probably referring to- and which the Civil Rights Act does not actually address is 'suspect class'- which is not the criteria you mention

Strict scrutiny is applied to government action that affect groups that fall under a "suspect classification." The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.[1]

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

Of course- none of that had anything to do with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas- where the Supreme Court told States that they American's do have a right to privacy.

And your post demonstrates the essential difference between the Christian Taliban like yourself - and the homosexual community in America.

You want use the power of government to criminalize consensual sexual behavior you don't approve of- you want the State to throw people in jail for having sex you find 'icky'.

Gays want to have the same legal rights as everyone else- and that includes the right to be provided service.

- - - Updated - - -

The christostapo is just butt hurt that they have failed in their attempts to criminalize consentual adult sexual behavior- after decades of prosecuting and discriminating against homosexuals- they have been told that their persecution is no longer acceptable.

And to them- that means that they are discriminated against.

 

Incorrect.

 

Incorrect, it is commerce. I agree the fine was excessive, they will likely have it redused on appeal. The more appropriate action would have been simple revocation of their business license for failure to abide by the laws of the sate

Strawman, one can belong to a protected class for chosen behaviors (see religious discrimination, which is also illegal)

Lol, I'm so glad the bulk of anti-gay proponents are of your caliber. You and yours have done more to advance gay rights than any other group of people in America by simply showing others your rhetoric. You talk about freedom but then seem upset that two adults can engage in specific sex acts in the privacy of their homes. Anti-sodomy legislation also effected heterosexual couples.

 

It is to be expected you have no counter argument, considering the Born Gay hoax was admitted to be a hoax, and by the homosexual creators of the hoax no less. Sort of leaves you with no argument, only the unsubstantive and ad hominems, doesn't it?

Readers, notice how he created the straw argument that those who expose and defend ourselves from the powerful gaystapo are "upset that two people can engage in specific sex acxts in the privacy of their own homes." ? The straw argument is always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. In debate class, it's the intellectual equivalent of throwing in the towel. But notice how he positions the powerful, aggressive gaystpo who is trying to use th eforce of Big Goverment to tell us what to think, what to speak,how to act and what to eat as 'victims"?

Want to know where the gaystapo gets that tactic? Consult the Homosexual Agenda bible that gaystapo zealots preach, pound, thump and proselytize:

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us." To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance--in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on
display.") Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: "These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me."

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated "victims". But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.

"... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

 

you think that is bad; some people spend actual time in jail for growing marijuana. it is a plant that a Bible claims was created by God and declared very Good and not Bad.

"Original sinners" in government are claiming a Holy Bible is wrong.

 

Please provide the evidence for this.

 

Separate but not equal creates a dangerous precedent. There used to be schools for white kids, and schools for black kids. White water fountains, black water fountains. White grocery stores, black grocery stores. What we as a nation learned from that is that should not be how business or public areas work. This for profit business should not be able to refuse service to someone based solely on their protected class status. Saying there are "other bakeries" they could shop at is like saying the black kids can go to a different school or that their parents can shop at different stores. Is $135,000 steep? Sure it is, but this case is what established precedent so penalties needed to be high so people would take the anti discrimination laws seriously.

 

Google it yourself and get educated.

- - - Updated - - -

Google it yourself and get educated. You can find the proof if you bother to study the homosexual political movement and its publications.

 

Obviously you have a lot to learn about debating, it is your assertion the onus is on you to support it, or can you not actually support it?

 

Your ignorance and laziness is showing.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...exposed-homosexual-hoax-creators-no-less.html

 

You have used something from a book that is 16 years old, have you even bothered to keep up with research such as the 2012 Thyroid Hormones: Pregnancy and Fetal Development - http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/thyroid_preg.html that shows that brain development during pregnancy can be affected by increased or decreased hormone levels that can produce a mental gender that is opposite of physical gender.

 

You posted that about an hour ago and it has not a single link to anything to support it .. and again it is lifted directly from DavidIcke.com, furthermore the item in question was taken from a book that is 16 years old, research has discovered quite a few things since then.

 

No matter how badly the public relations nightmare plays out, you can't change the fact that the Born Gay hoax was created by homosexuals Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen, and homosexual community leaders admit its a politically expedient hoax. That's why all you are left with is hyperbole and no counter argument, after all, how will you argue against the homosexuals who created the hoax, admitted the hoax, and all the homoseuxal community leaders quoted as admitting it's a hoax, with all the citations from the homosexuals themselves? Must be quite the conundrum for the gaystapo propagandists.

Not a single link you say? lol! Considering that Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen did author such publications, that they were published in Christopher Street and currently on a homosexual website, (http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/...g_Straight.htm) that homosexuals did lose Bowers v Hardwick, that Kirk and Madsen did publish a manifesto titled After the Ball..." a copy of which sits behind me on my bookshelf, that a War Conference in 1988 for homosexuals in Warrenton Virgina is a historical fact referenced by Universities and the hotels website, and that all the quotes and admissions from homosexuals were cited and referenced for your verification, it sort of looks like it is you are either deliberately lying, or you're ignorant, now doesn't it!? lol.

How does it feel to have me living rent free in your head?

 

I cannot change that the fact you stated is indeed untrue.

This is the content of the link you posted.

"Not Found

The requested URL /0018/...g_Straight.htm was not found on this server.

Apache Server at library.gayhomeland.org Port 80"

 

No matter how it plays out; there is no denying the fact that inTolerance is repugnant to the teachings of Jesus the Christ.

It could be claimed, only false Christians do that.