Twisting Scripture: The lies of Homosexuality.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious

- - - Updated - - -

The Bible is irrelevant to state law.
It also says not to judge, love your neighbor, not wear mixed fabrics, women should remain silent, divorce is not allowed, and so on... What's your point?

 

So what?

 

there is a difference masterpiece said they didn't serve gay people. Azugar objected to the message, they even offered to make the cakes.

There are double standards and I think it is wrong what happened to memories pizza and the CEO of Mozilla. But you didn't cite a double standard.

 

If you have a religous objection to making a cake, a bakery is likely not a good business for you.

 

Wrong.

The Oregon Christin bakers (Melissa Klein, Cakes by Melissa) declined to create a cake with gay wedding decorations for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, but offered to bake a normal cake. They had done this before for those same women.

The Lakewood Colorado bakery (Jack Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop) did the same as the Oregon shop:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after.html
The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. For the record, same-sex marriage is against the law in Colorado.

You were wrong, and remain wrong.

 

Wrong. So wrong its obvious you know nothing about the cases.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after.html
The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. For the record, same-sex marriage is against the law in Colorado.

Note that at that time, same sex marriage was illegal in Colorado so the gays were violating the law.

Masterpiece objected to the message. Azukar objected to the message. No difference at all. Except the politically biased Colorado "civil rights" bureaucrats hate Christians - that's why they supported Azukar's discrimination and penalized Masterpiece.

You should stop with the propaganda, and stop making up things.

 

In your example, the baker was willing to make the specialized bible cake and even offered to include frosting with the pipet, she objected to the provocative images and verbiage. In the other example the baker was unwilling to produce a cake that they had sold to other customers - under current public accommodation laws you cannot say I will let you buy anything but this because you are (black, gay, religious, etc).

The baker that refused the provocative language would have refused that for anyone that requested it, that cannot be said for the bakers that refused to make a wedding cake as they wanted to only exclude gay people.

I'm sorry if you have trouble understanding this, I disagree with public accommodation laws for small businesses - but as long as they exist we will have issues like this.

The courts disagree with you that "I am wrong, and remain wrong", the opposite actually

 

This simple statement blows the argument that it was only a wedding cake they wanted to refuse, if they couldn't wed then it was a simple baked good.

Yes yes, everyone hates Christians and they are under attack from all sides because they are expected to follow the law

 

No, I'm correct.

This clearly indicates he declined because the couple was gay. If he would make a wedding cake for a couple that wasn't gay, it's obvious that it's the couple being gay is the issue.

So show me the penal code is having a marriage that the state won't recognize a felony or a misdemeanor? What's the fine or sentence? What law are the violating?

What message did they ask him to write in the cake?

Yes they did.

No there is a difference. Unless you can show me that this gay couple wanted a pentagram or an upside down cross on their cake, it's only because the couple is gay.

Azugar didn't discriminate against christians. Just a message. I am not aware of the gay couple wanting a message on their cake.

You made (*)(*)(*)(*) up. You said something about masterpiece objecting to a message. Tell me what they wanted him to write on their cake?
You also said it was illegal for same sex couples to get married. Colorado isn't in Saudi Arabia. They haven't had such laws against non-recognized marriages

So you must have been trying to be ironic.

 

Its very simple.

Azucar refused to apply the decorations requested by the customer because the decorations offended the baker. In this case, passages copied from the Bible.

Masterpiece refused to apply the decorations requested by the customer because the decorations offended the baker. In this case, decorations which identified the wedding as between gays.

No difference.

Masterpiece had actually served gays in the past, but not in providing wedding cakes for gay weddings - your claim that Masterpeice excluded gays as a class is false.

 

You were caught in a blatant misrepresentation, now you want to play sophomoric games.

Google it, there are many articles on the cases. All your questions are easily answered in those articles. Until you are up to speed with everyone else, and can discuss at the level of everyone else, you are wasting my time.

 

Complete difference.
The wedding cake was denied because of the couples orientation
The Bible cake, which wasn't even denied, had nothing to do with the individuals religion.

 

He's good at false representations and wasting time. A little clique on the homosexual forum play the game. Totally dishonest, proving my opinion that everything about homosexuality is a lie.

 

Both customers were refused the cake they specified. Both customers were offered an alternative to the cake the customers requested.

Each baker refused to provide basic customer requested decorations to a cake because the baker objected to the content (speech) of the decorations.

Its that simple.

In a truly objective process in which the principle of equality under the law is followed, the cases would have the same outcome.

But they did not - the same "civil rights" board ruled against the Christian baker in one case, and the Christian customer in the other. Together, the 2 cases prove the bias in that system.

 

We will have to disagree, I would agree there was bias if a gay baker refused a similar cake sold to a Christian. The individual in your example was purposefully being provocative and all that was refused was the provocative material (that would have been denied to anyone), a specialized cake was going to be created. In the other case they were refused similar service because of their orientation.

I somewhat understand your point to an extent, I just disagree that refusing to write / draw provocative material is the same as flat out refusing a good that a facility typically serves.

- - - Updated - - -

Homosexuality doesn't exist, it's all an illusion

 

I didn't misrepresent anything, why do you have to lie?

read about them.

They were. Masterpiece didn't object to a message. You just lied about that.

So now that your caught in your lie you just play dumb?

What a joke. No wonder oberfel v hodges ended the way it did.

 

A lie exists, but it's still a lie.

 

Some how it's a lie? That doesn't make any sense.

 

So gay people are no longer citizens (as per your reading of the XIV) and now they are a lie...
You're not even trying =(

 

Logic triumphs

 

Sounds like backward ideology dying.

 

Of course homosexuals are citizens. However, the 14th amendment is not about homosexual citizens. The 14th amendment is about ex slaves and their descendants being recognized as citizens. You're going out of your way to deliberately misunderstand. You can join the rest of your dishonest clique on ignore.

 

It doesn't say that.

You pouring everybody that diesnt agree with you in ignore is a victory. You wing even acknowledge other viewpoints.

 

Please point to the verbiage in the XIV amendment that limits it to slaves. All I can find is "all citizens", maybe we are reading different versions of the constitution... Thanks!

You've aleardy promised to put me on ignore 3 times now - hope you follow through, won't want to mess up your safe space echo chamber.

 

The New Testament does away with the Old T's harshness and doesn't say to kill anybody, in fact Jesus never mentioned GLBT's one way or the other, not a single word., and people quickly cottoned on..-
"The covenant of which Jesus is mediator is superior to the old one" (Heb 8:6)
"Through Jesus we are saved,and not through Moses" (Acts 13:39)
"Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Pet 1:18 )