Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

You really should read the first amendment then since it defines specifically freedom of religion. Homosexuality is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution so by your own definition preferred citizenship already exists.

False claims? You sure you want to go down that path? Be specific. What false claims are you claiming I've made so I can present you the proper evidence.

 

So you admit its ok to force christian bakers but not musilim ones? At least you are honest about your bias...thanks for your honesty

 

It’s actually closer to 1 in 20 but hold on to that fantasy

 

Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for wearing a cross to work?

 

I did not label .. I just pointed out your fallacy.

In relation to "evidence" my bad .. I thought this was posted to you but it was to another poster.

This is just the beginning of the "evidence". Not that you were the one that claimed it was "choice" - and you have provided zero in support of your claim.

Respond to the "evidence" in my post and then give evidence which supports your claim. Then I will give more "evidence" - some of which has already been presented in some of my posts to others on this thread.

 

Thay analogy doesn't really work. ..it woukd be more like firing someone for not wearing a cross to work

 

I disagree that it isn’t similar. You are either for protections are you are against them.

How about someone wanting a cake with a cross on it, is it one for them to say we don’t serve your kind here?

 

The first amendment doesn't say anything about the Fair Housing Act either. Refusing goods, services, employment or housing to Christians does not deny them their right to their religion. The first amendment protects an individuals right to religion, but the gay cake buyer is dealing with a business entity, not an individual.

I don't have an issue with people refusing to do business for whatever reason they choose. Its only an issue for me when they enjoy legal protection from having it done to them. (Do onto others...) As of now, the practice is accepted in some states, but as more Christians use their businesses to push their beliefs onto others and point their righteous fingers saying "We don't serve your kind here", it will only end up causing harm to their image and making lawyers a lot of money.

Your false claim was that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

 

Yes. But it must be made clear at the time of hiring concerning the rules of proper attire.

 

I haven’t read where this bakery said no gays before hand. Must have missed it.

 

No. But they can absolutely refuse to add that decoration if it offends them.

 

Which employee did they fire?

 

They are the same. They all fall under accommodation laws. Review the justification for accommodation laws, in the USA Christian bakery cases the arguement was that a public business must provide his service to everyone, the business owner must leave his personal opinion and belief at the door.

Under the logic used to force Christians to participate in gay weddings, Google, Twitter, facebook, must provide their services equally to all people regardless of the customers politics and religion.

The religion haters put themselves in a box. Now its time to make them live up to their own rules.

 

An private employer can implement a dress code. An employer cannot say a person cannot wear a crucifix, but the employer can require it to not be displayed or worn where it is visible to customers.

Under true private property, a business owner should be able to hire and serve whoever he wants. If he does not want to serve or hire Christians or gays or muslims or blacks or gun owners, thats the right of the owner.

 

a cross on a cake is 2 lines. It isnt a statement about something that is against their religion...i dont see it as black or white...id take it even one step further and say that even if musilim customer wanted a cake from a Christian bakery with the islam logo that they should do it...but if they wanted words on the cake that said "behead all infidels" the baker has the right ro refuse...also saying "we wont do a particular thing" is not the same as saying "we dont serve your kind"....everything ahould be handled on an individual basis

 

If you think I agree to force chirstians to bake a cake for a gay wedding you didn't read my posts carefully\.

 

You are right..i misinterpreted...my apologies

 

Neither does it anywhere in the Constitution. It is a federal law passed by Congress that since its clear you have no read does not cover homosexuality.

No it discriminates against it. The law:

• Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

No they are not when they are asking a Christian to bake a cake for their ceremony that is making that Christian a participant going against their own religious beliefs.

Pretty amusing you think Christians are pushing anything when they are the ones getting sued by homosexuals and local government bodies. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the court cases.

Sigh. Very well I will once again provide the scientific studies proving my case.

Let's start with the definition of a psychological disorder so no one gets "lost" on the path.


mental disorder
(redirected from Psychological Disorders)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.
Related to Psychological Disorders: schizophrenia, Personality disorders
mental
[men´tal]
1. pertaining to the mind.
2. pertaining to the chin.
mental disorder any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by distressing symptoms,significant impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, or other disability. Mental disorders are assumed to result from some behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual.

Here are the rest of the studies listing the multiple mental disorders of homosexuals that make up their psychological disorder.

In a 2008 meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes for non-heterosexuals, University College London professor of psychiatry Michael King and colleagues concluded that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals face “higher risk of suicidal behaviour, mental disorder and substance misuse and dependence than heterosexual people.”[1] This survey of the literature examined papers published between January 1966 and April 2005 with data from 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non-heterosexual individuals. The large sample size allowed the authors to generate estimates that are highly reliable, as indicated by the relatively small confidence intervals.[2]

Compiling the risk ratios found in these papers, the authors estimated that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals had a 2.47 times higher lifetime risk than heterosexuals for suicide attempts,[3] that they were about twice as likely to experience depression over a twelve-month period,[4] and approximately 1.5 times as likely to experience anxiety disorders.[5] Both non-heterosexual men and women were found to be at an elevated risk for substance abuse problems (1.51 times as likely),[6] with the risk for non-heterosexual women especially high — 3.42 times higher than for heterosexual women.[7] Non-heterosexual men, on the other hand, were at a particularly high risk for suicide attempts: while non-heterosexual men and women together were at a 2.47 times greater risk of suicide attempts over their lifetimes, non-heterosexual men were found to be at a 4.28 times greater risk.[8]

These findings have been replicated in other studies, both in the United States and internationally, confirming a consistent and alarming pattern.

Women who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or “not sure” reported higher rates of lifetime mood disorders than women who identified as heterosexual: the prevalence was 44.4% in lesbians, 58.7% in bisexuals, and 36.5% in women unsure of their sexual identity, as compared to 30.5% in heterosexuals. A similar pattern was found for anxiety disorders, with bisexual women experiencing the highest prevalence, followed by lesbians and those unsure, and heterosexual women experiencing the lowest prevalence. Examining the data for women with different sexual behavior or sexual attraction (rather than identity), those reporting sexual behavior with or attractions to both men and women had a higher rate of lifetime disorders than women who reported exclusively heterosexual or homosexual behaviors or attractions, and women reporting exclusive same-sex sexual behavior or exclusive same-sex attraction in fact had the lowest rates of lifetime mood and anxiety disorders.[11]

Men who identified as gay had more than double the prevalence of lifetime mood disorders compared to men who identified as heterosexual (42.3% vs. 19.8%), and more than double the rate of any lifetime anxiety disorder (41.2% vs. 18.6%), while those who identified as bisexual had a slightly lower prevalence of mood disorders (36.9%) and anxiety disorders (38.7%) than gay men. When looking at sexual attraction or behavior for men, those who reported sexual attraction to “mostly males” or sexual behavior with “both females and males” had the highest prevalence of lifetime mood disorders and anxiety disorders compared to other groups, while those reporting exclusively heterosexual attraction or behavior had the lowest prevalence of any group.

While the authors of this study found a number of health conditions that appeared to have elevated prevalence among non-heterosexuals, after adjusting for demographic factors that are potential confounders the only group with significantly greater prevalence of non-HIV physical health conditions was bisexual women, who were more likely to have health problems than heterosexual women. Consistent with the 2010 study by Bostwick and colleagues, higher rates of psychological stress were reported by lesbians, bisexual women, gay men, and homosexually experienced heterosexual men, both before and after adjusting for demographic confounding. Among men, self-identified gay and homosexually experienced heterosexual respondents reported the highest rates of several health problems.

Using the same California Quality of Life Survey, a 2009 study by UCLA professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences Christine Grella and colleagues (including Cochran) examined the relationship between sexual orientation and receiving treatment for substance use or mental disorders.[13]They used a population-based sample, with sexual minorities oversampled to provide more statistical power to detect group differences. The usage of treatment was classified according to whether or not respondents reported receiving treatment in the preceding twelve months for “emotional, mental health, alcohol or other drug problems.” Sexual orientation was operationalized by a combination of behavioral history and self-identification. For example, they grouped together as “gay/bisexual” or “lesbian/bisexual” both those who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and those who had reported same-sex sexual behaviors. They found that women who were lesbian or bisexual were most likely to have received treatment, followed by men who were gay or bisexual, then heterosexual women, with heterosexual men being the least likely group to have reported receiving treatment. Overall, more than twice as many LGB individuals, compared to heterosexuals, had reported receiving treatment in the past twelve months (48.5% compared to 22.5%). The pattern was similar for men and women; 42.5% of homosexual men, compared to 17.1% of heterosexual men, had reported receiving treatment, while 55.3% of lesbian and bisexual women and 27.1% of heterosexual women reported receiving treatment. (Bostwick and colleagues had found that women with exclusively same-sex attractions and behaviors had a lower prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders compared to heterosexual women. The difference in results could be due to the fact that Grella and colleagues grouped those who identified as lesbians together with those who identified as bisexuals or who reported same-sex sexual behavior.)

A 2006 study by Columbia University psychiatry professor Theodorus Sandfort and colleagues examined a representative, population-based sample from the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, carried out in 2001, to assess links between self-reported sexual orientation and health status among 9,511 participants, of whom 0.9% were classified as bisexual and 1.5% as gay or lesbian.[14] To operationalize sexual orientation, the researchers asked respondents about their sexual preference on a 5-point scale: exclusively women, predominantly women, equally men and women, predominantly men, and exclusively men. Only those who reported an equal preference for men and women were classified as bisexual, while men reporting predominant preferences for women, or women reporting a predominant preference for men were classified as heterosexual. They found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents reported experiencing higher numbers of acute mental health problems and reported worse general mental health than heterosexuals. The results for physical health were mixed, however: lesbian and gay respondents reported experiencing more acute physical symptoms (such as headaches, back pain, or sore throats) over the past fourteen days, though they did not report experiencing two or more such symptoms any more than heterosexuals.

Lesbian and gay respondents were more likely to report chronic health problems, though bisexual men (that is, men who reported an equal sexual preference for men and women) were less likely to report chronic health problems and bisexual women were no more likely than heterosexual women to do so. The researchers did not find a statistically significant relationship between sexual orientation and overall physical health. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of mental health problems on the reporting of physical health problems, the researchers also found that the statistical effect of reporting a gay or lesbian sexual preference on chronic and acute physical conditions disappeared, though the effect of bisexual preference remained.

The Sandfort study defined sexual orientation in terms of preference or attraction without reference to behavior or self-identification, which makes it a challenge to compare its results to the results of studies that operationalize sexual orientation differently. For example, it is difficult to compare the findings of this study regarding bisexuals (defined as men or women who report an equal sexual preference for men and women) with the findings of other studies regarding “homosexually experienced heterosexual individuals” or those who are “unsure” of their sexual identity. As in most of these types of studies, the health assessments were self-reported, which may make the results somewhat unreliable. But this study also has several strengths: it used a large and representative sample of a country’s population, as opposed to the convenience samples that are sometimes used for these kinds of studies, and this sample included a sufficient number of gays and lesbians for their data to be treated in separate groups in the study’s statistical analyses. Only three people in the sample reported HIV infection, so this did not appear to be a potential confounding factor, though HIV could have been underreported.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...tcomes-and-social-stress-sexuality-and-gender

It is the very reason homosexuals suffer from more depression more anxiety more suicidal thoughts and more struggles with their sexual identity that make it a psychological disorder.

 

Shoot no problem. What you did prove is that our side takes religious liberty and the 1st amendment seriously

Unlike the LGBT community that only sues Christians and stays clear of Muslim businesses for their pound of flesh.

 

It's always nice to see bigots coming out of their closets so we know who they are.

 

So someone should not be able to find the cross offense? You’re basically advocating for a superior legal class

 

They denied services, same principle

 

In my mind all corporate media by both political parties is fake news. It's all run by the C.I.A. , MIC, and Department Of Homeland Security.

Independent investigative news journalism died sometime in the 1980's.

 

You are free to have your opinion on it, and to each their own. My biggest issue with the homosexual gene theory is that traits tend to serve two main purposes and even the strangest can be tied to them. 1.Survival - Nope on that one, doesn't seem to be much help, quite the opposite in much of the worlds history. 2.Procreation - Uhmmm, yeah...no.

Back to the topic of the baker, try this one on for size: Make me a beautiful MAGA cake, complete with a liberal teardrop border and a sturdy wall on the southern side.

 

No, not really. Quite a few news articles have compared the Christian bakery with the internet censorship of Facebook or Twitter. I find it highly suspicious that they decided to move on internet content censorship on those platforms right shortly after the supreme court ruling for the Christian bakery almost trying to utilize it as a legislative precursor for other things concerning agendas.


One thing is for certain, as much as I don't like the republican party at least they're not trying to censor free speech like the democratic party is.

Free speech for me but not for thee, that's how insane the democratic party is right now.