seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Sigh... creativity is deeply rooted to the person doing the creating. You simply CANNOT force someone to be creative for you. Want proof?
Who owns a tattoo? The person its on, right? Nope. Tattoo artists can copy write their work.
Its admirable that so many care about ‘gay rights’...
but theres no such thing. Homosexuals have no special rights. Sorry if that bothers you.
Wow, that is definitely a qr symbol! What is that from? How bizzare. This is far, far from the religion i once knew.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Its insane what people think it a “right”, in this case believing its a “right” to make someone else serve you in the way you require.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
John, you didnt answer. Im looking for a specific law or statue that makes being homosexual “protected”.
Let me help with my own example. Your wrong about pornographers not being protected. The supreme court has ruled on that several times and in different contexts, some of which may shock you.
So again i ask.... why shouldnt a baker be forced to make a pornographic cake?
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
morph as blown away pointed out in his earlier circular reasoning filled comment there are groups that the law protects- homosexuals are one of them, porno lovers are not.
Hmm... i think im begining to see the problem. Could, per chance, cite a specific law or statue that makes bei g homsexual “protected”?
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
John, perhaps you could explain how not making a pornographic cake for larry flint is different than not making a gay pride cake?
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Never mind i just looked up who they were: ginsberg and Sotomayor. Explains it all.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
I respectfully disagree. Generally speaking, shervices SHOULD be offered in a blanket manner. If you run a hotel you shouldnt be allowed to have an anti heterosexual policy anymore than an anti homosexual policy. If you go to chick fil a they should serve you if your a long haired tattooed man in shorts and a tee shirt (without vulgar language on it) or in a tuxedo. Or if your hetrosexual. Or if your homosexual.
Whats at issue here was the baker being compelled to use his creativity to support a message he didnt agree with. The bakery offered a generic cake. They had no problem serving the couple, they didnt want to specifically create a pro homosexual message. This isnt that complicated. And i agree that its scarry and troubling that two justices dissented. Very troubling.
has anyone else noticed that in the wt study articles the main point they want you to remember is always somewhere around paragraph 11-14?
it's like a formula.
intro and overview paragraphs 1-4. basic wt stuff 5-8 (not controversial).
As others have noted, this is 100% the formula. When i conducted the wt i realized the basic format and then realized the truth: i didnt need to prepare to conduct. Not even 5 min. Not 5 seconds. If i ever got a little lost i just had someone read a scripture and scanned the next paragraph. It was so simplistic as to be insulting.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
What's clear is that not supporting same-sex marriage does not make you a homophobe, although the word has now become so over-used it's virtually meaningless
X2
Seems that the Colorado Commission is fine if a baker (who supported LGBT community) refused to bake cakes with anti-gay messages, but doesn't agree if a religious baker refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings.
Yep. But thats ok because it goes the way the radical left wants.
