Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

I mean they appear to be be deliberately targeted and it borders harassment

 

I read, "have grounds for persecution against the LGBT community" as they have grounds to persecute members of the LGBT community in response to this harassment.

 

Whatever.. it was before breakfast to me sounds like they are deliberately targeted by LGBT groups... at some point they may have a case for harassment if this continues

 

Isn't it biology at the end of the day?

 

So that would take care of the nature side of things, but what about nurture?

 

Yes, but only on the basis of gender, which would also be illegal. The argument would be that God only intended on men being in sexual relationships with women. I can't speak for Jack, so he may not refuse a cake for a same sex commitment ceremony, but I'm guessing that he would.

I'm not "playing semantic games" nor am I being dishonest! You keep talking about being served "equally." The problem is, these laws don't say anything about being treated equally.

You mean because I said that religious people shouldn't have more protection under the law than anyone else?

Discrimination protection for Christians? Does that exist?

Including in the Supreme Court which could find the law unconstitutional?

You have said that there was no way that they could've changed the law while at the same time winning their case. So do you think that if they were being honest, they shouldn't have fought the case?

You haven't even said what countries these are in.

How the hell did business owners even know who was gay?

A religious exemption, or a freedom of expression exemption?

I'm sure that Jack hates discrimination and wouldn't care if these laws stamped out ACTUAL, GENUINE discrimination.

 

The expression of the cake isn't how it's used.

 

What requested written personal message?

 

The owner does not seem to be getting the point.

 

.

 

If you say so

But today its liberals who are promoting sex with young girls outside of marriage

Which is even more wrong since the boys are not held accountable for the pregancies they cause

 

Getting married does not make it ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl

 

I never said it did

But the left is indifferent to young girls having sex as long as they are not married to an older man

And thats insane

 

It can be something that happens in the womb.

 

How so?

 

If he is unable to (or unwilling) to abide by the laws, and everyone knows it, they will keep targeting him. All they have to is walk in and day "bake me a gay-cake" and he will refuse, and they'll sue him for some money.

 

not even comparable... nukes are not cakes.... not even in the same class, they have their own rules, and the rule apply to everyone

 

I don't know one person who condones pedophilia.

 

the baker doesn't sell hateful wording on cake, the baker does sell wedding cakes... but he could choose not to sell wedding cakes to anyone too, what he can not do is sell them and decriminalize based on the race or gender of the couple

 

I do not think a rapist is forced to rape by biology - so while we are biological creatures, so technically everything we do is biological, I think that simplifies it too much

 

In the UK, you can get billed for wasting time for taking someone to court willy nilly.

 

At what age should it be against the law for girls to engage in sex?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They have no protection UNDER the law, their protection is OVER the law. Religion is a RESERVED right da gubmint has no jurisdiction over, including judging what is and what is not religion in their commercial courts.

Commercial laws joe are under the constitution, religion is over the constitution. Any law da gubmint makes that violates someones religion is void ab initio

 

So religious people can break whatever law they want if they consider it excercising their religion?

 

Billed for what?