CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail

Dec 8, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Gateway Pundit

Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple.

Comments
7,321 - 7,340 of 16,146 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8072
Mar 18, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Simple, but completely wrong, as Holder told them no such thing. He told them that they had no legal obligation to DEFEND laws which they do not believe to be constitutional. Defending and upholding, verbs with entirely different meanings. They are obligated to uphold laws not yet found in violation of the Constitution, but they are not obligated to defend those laws when they are challenged. Hopefully you can now see the difference.
Basically that means all but a few elected officials belong in prison.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8073
Mar 18, 2014
 
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple person like you should understand this better.
Holder obama not anyone can tell a states attorney general not to honor his oath no matter how many queers say otherwise. Do you know what an oath is? Obviously your president doesn't as he continues to rule as a king.
Funny how your kind was all over obama just a few years ago when he said marriage was between one man and one woman, but of course that appears to just be another obama campaign LIE.
Obama the flip flopper just like heinz 57 kerry.
And what elected official isn't as morally bankrupt as is Obama? Why do you only mention the insanity of the democrats when the republicans are just as insane?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8074
Mar 18, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha
The COURT is forcing it, you moron. And Attorneys General are not required to defend unconstitutional laws. You are an uneducated idiot.
OMG an authoritarian admits there are such things as unconstitutional laws. This is amazing. Next thing you know you'll be admitting the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats at destroying our country and taking away our freedoms.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8075
Mar 18, 2014
 
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a queer with an over the rainbow dream. Courts will not defeat the will of the people.
It is how our laws work--judges don't make law fool.
If the courts do not over-turn the will of the people they are not doing their job.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8076
Mar 18, 2014
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yes, they do, because they don't determine what is constitutional and what is not...the courts do. You have the right to challenge the law But you must obey it until such time as it is overturned.
<quoted text>
No they don't. And I do not obey unconstitutional laws. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8077
Mar 19, 2014
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
The constitution overrides the will of the people every time.
How many SSM bans have courts overturned now?
As for the people...over half the population favors SSM now.
<quoted text>
You are as consistent as are Diane Fienstein and party girl Nancy Pelosi. When you can use the Constitution to protect your rights you are all for it, but when you can get an unconstitutional law forcing people to bake cakes passed then screw the Constitution. With your level of dishonesty it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You make normal conversation IMPOSSIBLE!
poof

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8078
Mar 19, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are as consistent as are Diane Fienstein and party girl Nancy Pelosi. When you can use the Constitution to protect your rights you are all for it, but when you can get an unconstitutional law forcing people to bake cakes passed then screw the Constitution. With your level of dishonesty it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You make normal conversation IMPOSSIBLE!
Please explain why its ok for a baker to deny service to a gay couple based on his/hers religion.

But its wrong to deny a woman the ability to become part of the clergy , that is also based on the same religion

You claim the first is not discrimination , but the second is.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8079
Mar 19, 2014
 
poof wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain why its ok for a baker to deny service to a gay couple based on his/hers religion.
But its wrong to deny a woman the ability to become part of the clergy , that is also based on the same religion
You claim the first is not discrimination , but the second is.
You really don't understand any of this do you. If I explain it will you pay attention and read my answer, then try and understand it before you start arguing again?

The US Constitution forbids the Government from passing certain laws. The Government went ahead and passed certain laws because most people aren't very smart and they knew they could get away with it under the disguise of making life fair.

This has NOTHING to do with the bakers religion, it only has to do with his right to discriminate being infringed. Who cares why he wanted to discriminate it is irrelevant. Do you know what the word irrelevant means?

The Baker, under the Constitution [which government has voided] can discriminate against anyone for any reason. I know you don't like it but that is because you do not understand the difference between freedom and the tyranny of the majority.

Now, this is all apples and oranges. What a church does has nothing to do with what our Constitution allows and stops the government from doing. You might as well ask why it is OK to spit on the street in New York but not to go topless in California. One has nothing to do with the other. Some religions allow women into the clergy other do not. The Constitution says Government must stay out of this, just like the government must stay out of the religious beliefs of the baker.

Your "thinking" is confused and muddled and you assume too many things that are just not true. The baker is free do discriminate exactly like the church is free to discriminate. You are confused and do not understand and you write with such generalities as to make normal conversation impossible.

Your questions "nail" nothing, they are stupid questions having nothing to do with one another and it is unfortunate you can't see this.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8080
Mar 19, 2014
 
poof wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain why its ok for a baker to deny service to a gay couple based on his/hers religion.
But its wrong to deny a woman the ability to become part of the clergy , that is also based on the same religion
You claim the first is not discrimination , but the second is.
The Constitution is supposed to protect the Bakers right to associate. His religion is irrelevant.

The government is supposed to stay out of religion and let them run it the way their leaders want.

The baker is discriminating, I NEVER claimed he wasn't. I said he has a right to discriminate and he exercised his right. The church has a right to discriminate both to whom they make their leaders and to whom they let in their doors.

You are trying to make orange juice from apples.

Now, if you can't pay attention to the details don't ask again.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8081
Mar 19, 2014
 
SHADOW wrote:
A simple person like you should understand this better.
You are the one who confused defend as a synonym for uphold, but I'll play along for laughs. Tell me what I don't understand here.
Johnny wrote:
Holder obama not anyone can tell a states attorney general not to honor his oath no matter how many queers say otherwise.
But they didn't, weren't you paying attention?
Johnny wrote:
Do you know what an oath is?
Yes I do dear, do you actually know what these folks have sworn to do? Defending unconstitutional laws passed by the people and/or the Legislature from legal challenge, not part of it. Upholding those laws while they wait to be ruled unconstitutional is a part of their oath, defending them ain't. Sorry. Just so you know, this was a concept first come up with by the Reagan administration.
Johnny wrote:
Obviously your president doesn't as he continues to rule as a king.
Uh-huh.
Johnny wrote:
Funny how your kind was all over obama just a few years ago when he said marriage was between one man and one woman, but of course that appears to just be another obama campaign LIE.
Obama the flip flopper just like heinz 57 kerry.
Gee, I thought you were going to explain to me what it was that I didn't understand, I already knew you were suffering from ODS and the heterosexual learning disorder...

poof

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8082
Mar 19, 2014
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution is supposed to protect the Bakers right to associate. His religion is irrelevant.
The government is supposed to stay out of religion and let them run it the way their leaders want.
The baker is discriminating, I NEVER claimed he wasn't. I said he has a right to discriminate and he exercised his right. The church has a right to discriminate both to whom they make their leaders and to whom they let in their doors.
You are trying to make orange juice from apples.
Now, if you can't pay attention to the details don't ask again.
That is not what you have posted before. YOU said that the baker could discriminate against gays, if his/her religion so dictated.

In another post you where biatching that the Christian religion discriminates against females.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8083
Mar 19, 2014
 
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a queer with an over the rainbow dream. Courts will not defeat the will of the people.
It is how our laws work--judges don't make law fool.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahehehehehehehehehehehehehehe hehehehehehehehe
I laugh in your freaky face bad breath.
Prop 8, dumbass. The Court overturned the will of the people.

And the court overturned Texass' ban, too. Looks like you are a dumbass.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8084
Mar 19, 2014
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
And when the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...." And Congress makes a law....
Baking a cake is NOT a religious practice.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8085
Mar 19, 2014
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG an authoritarian admits there are such things as unconstitutional laws. This is amazing. Next thing you know you'll be admitting the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats at destroying our country and taking away our freedoms.
What's amazing is that you remember to breathe.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8086
Mar 19, 2014
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are as consistent as are Diane Fienstein and party girl Nancy Pelosi. When you can use the Constitution to protect your rights you are all for it, but when you can get an unconstitutional law forcing people to bake cakes passed then screw the Constitution. With your level of dishonesty it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You make normal conversation IMPOSSIBLE!
What court ruled that law unconstitutional? The Rev Anal's Court?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8088
Mar 19, 2014
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution is supposed to protect the Bakers right to associate. His religion is irrelevant.
The government is supposed to stay out of religion and let them run it the way their leaders want.
The baker is discriminating, I NEVER claimed he wasn't. I said he has a right to discriminate and he exercised his right. The church has a right to discriminate both to whom they make their leaders and to whom they let in their doors.
You are trying to make orange juice from apples.
Now, if you can't pay attention to the details don't ask again.
A bakery is NOT a church, you old fool.
SHADOW

Feasterville Trevose, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8089
Mar 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
The constitution overrides the will of the people every time.
How many SSM bans have courts overturned now?
As for the people...over half the population favors SSM now.
<quoted text>
They tolerate it not the same as favor by any means. If they favored it they would be doing the same sex thing which they are not.
Yes before you queers started cryig the will of the people met something and it still does.
What ya gonna do when this next election returns the presidency abd the senate to conservatives and we just reverse the damage you squeeky 2% have done
Bye you gender confused same sexers. After the elections you will be forced by law to stay in your home in the closet or be stoned.
SHADOW

Feasterville Trevose, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8090
Mar 19, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Baking a cake is NOT a religious practice.
Neither is trying to have perverted sex with a member of the same sex-----PUKE
SHADOW

Feasterville Trevose, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8091
Mar 19, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8, dumbass. The Court overturned the will of the people.
And the court overturned Texass' ban, too. Looks like you are a dumbass.
Texas got an immediate stay and we will defeat this liberal same sex judge believe me we will laugh last pervert.
Remember a conservative judge can just reverse this crazy perversion

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8092
Mar 19, 2014
 
poof wrote:
<quoted text>That is not what you have posted before. YOU said that the baker could discriminate against gays, if his/her religion so dictated.
In another post you where biatching that the Christian religion discriminates against females.
I said he has the right to discriminate and if he wants to use his religion to justify it then who cares. It is not important why someone discriminates only that they have the right to do so for any reason.

I was not "biatching" [what ever that is] about the KKKristian religion I was quoting the god damned stupid Bible where it has men above women like Jesus is above men. Oh yeah, the Bible has women right up there with oxen, goats, sheep and cattle.

http://libertycrier.com/it-cant-happen-here/
This video is for all those who imagine that there is some sort of magic that renders the United States immune to the tyranny that has plagued every other major empire in history.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••