After over a decade of being harassed by the homosexuals, a Christian baker finally has the lawsuit against him tossed

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, User said:

I will take this as you admit that your posts here have been nothing more than contributing to that soup of blech. 

Why are you talking to me? I thought you have no respect for me?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why are you talking to me? I thought you have no respect for me?

I will take this as a yes. You confirm that your posts here have been nothing more than contributing to that soup of blech. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, User said:

I will take this as a yes. You confirm that your posts here have been nothing more than contributing to that soup of blech. 

 

Well, I like my posts.  I thought that you didn't but here you are replying to them. 

 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I like my posts.  I thought that you didn't but here you are replying to them. 

 

You like contributing to that soup of blech? Interesting. 

[Yakuda]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Since yours is, as usual, the only thoughtful post in a soup of blech... May I ask you if civil rights legislation from the 1960s from LBJ is unprincipled, in your opinion?

 No it wasn't unprincipled but you like to pretend the principles upon which it was based are good. Are you deluded enough to think that the democrat party made a principled decision to "select" the cackling kamal as their candidate while simultaneously claiming they are "defenders of democracy". You don't really believe she is the candidate based on the principle of democracy do you? Can you be THAT deluded? 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I like my posts.  I thought that you didn't but here you are replying to them. 

 

So you like your belch but not anyone else's.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You replied to ME, cowboy 🤠 😄 

Time to saddle up the steed and round up the strays.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, User said:

You like contributing to that soup of blech? Interesting. 

No, my posts are excellent.

And I remember how I got you to stop posting replies to me: I pointed out that you HAVE to have the last word.

Am I right? 👍

[User]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, my posts are excellent.

And I remember how I got you to stop posting replies to me: I pointed out that you HAVE to have the last word.

Am I right? 👍

Ah yes, they are so excellent you have to run away from them and reduce yourself to these petty tactics of being obtuse and obfuscating. 

 

[SkyHigh]

This always seemed a non-issue to me. If a private company chooses not to provide their services for any reason (legitimate or not) should have the right to do that. Personally I wouldn't turn down a client whatever (save those promoting violence or hate) they may stand for. I once did a union event for some big wigs and I think unions are for the most part useless and are a large contributor to the bureaucratic waste stalling every attempt to improve the lives of the masses, but I digress.

Public services of course must accept all

 

[impartialobserver]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Since yours is, as usual, the only thoughtful post in a soup of blech... May I ask you if civil rights legislation from the 1960s from LBJ is unprincipled, in your opinion?

I find that they faced far greater obstacles than this gay couple. 

On 10/14/2024 at 8:35 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I like my posts.  I thought that you didn't but here you are replying to them. 

 

Interesting how what someone says is so meaningless and braindead but yet they reflexively react to them every single time. I ignore what most of them say. Most of my posts are standalone and not in reaction to them. 

[West]

22 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

This always seemed a non-issue to me. If a private company chooses not to provide their services for any reason (legitimate or not) should have the right to do that. Personally I wouldn't turn down a client whatever (save those promoting violence or hate) they may stand for. I once did a union event for some big wigs and I think unions are for the most part useless and are a large contributor to the bureaucratic waste stalling every attempt to improve the lives of the masses, but I digress.

Public services of course must accept all

 

It's an issue because they used the court system to harass someone for not baking a cake. 

It's why I may lean more "left" in terms of a safety net but can't get behind the nonsensical social issues the leftists try to ram down everyone's throats. 

This is a good illustration of why I think the liberal movement is quite vile

[SkyHigh]

32 minutes ago, West said:

It's an issue because they used the court system to harass someone for not baking a cake. 

It's why I may lean more "left" in terms of a safety net but can't get behind the nonsensical social issues the leftists try to ram down everyone's throats. 

This is a good illustration of why I think the liberal movement is quite vile

On a political level I agree, when I said non issue I meant that it shouldn't have seen a court room or have been some sort of rallying point to latch on to a movement that still has real issues 

On an entrepreneurial level, terrible business sense. Someone wants to give you money to provide the service you offer, take the cash. I of course respect a business owners choice to serve (or not) whomever they want but they're not very good at capitalism.

Where I feel you may be in error, is that you seen to be painting an entire reasonable political movement, based on the actions of an extreme wing. The same way people equate the rantings of Trump to the views of reasonable conservatives 

 

[West]

20 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

On a political level I agree, when I said non issue I meant that it shouldn't have seen a court room or have been some sort of rallying point to latch on to a movement that still has real issues 

On an entrepreneurial level, terrible business sense. Someone wants to give you money to provide the service you offer, take the cash. I of course respect a business owners choice to serve (or not) whomever they want but they're not very good at capitalism.

Where I feel you may be in error, is that you seen to be painting an entire reasonable political movement, based on the actions of an extreme wing. The same way people equate the rantings of Trump to the views of reasonable conservatives 

 

I would've agreed with you even 15 years ago. But Obama was probably the most radical when it came to harassing Christians. And now the candidate is Kamala Harris. 

Biden was a bit more moderate awhile ago but he's not the one in charge. He takes direction from Marxists which is why you now see them going after religious institutions and old ladies praying outside abortion clinics. 

This isn't the party of Bill Clinton anymore who was more a moderate Democrat even if a bit of a sleaze ball. I probably couldve even handled Bernie who i dont think wouldve been as radical with his abuse of the legal system as what this current administration is doing. When you have moderates like Joe Manchin basically quitting on the party you know they've gone extreme. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by West

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, West said:

But Obama was probably the most radical when it came to harassing Christians.

How so?

[User]

13 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

How so?

How he vindictively went after the Little Sisters of The Poor to force them to provide birth control. 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, User said:

How he vindictively went after the Little Sisters of The Poor to force them to provide birth control. 

Oh, for a second there I thought you actually had an argument. Silly me 

Ones employer should have zero decisional power over the choices their employees make with their medical professionals.

I believe health care to be a fundamental human right ( I seem to remember Jesus being pretty keen on heeling the sick) therefore I am 100% behind the government mandating such things. Regardless of any religious or cultural objections.

[User]

15 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh, for a second there I thought you actually had an argument. Silly me 

Ones employer should have zero decisional power over the choices their employees make with their medical professionals.

I believe health care to be a fundamental human right ( I seem to remember Jesus being pretty keen on heeling the sick) therefore I am 100% behind the government mandating such things. Regardless of any religious or cultural objections.

Oh, for a second there I though you were earnestly asking that question... 

You clearly do not understand what took place either. The issue was not one of an employer telling their employees anything regarding what choices they make with their medical professionals. 

"contraceptives" are not "health care."

 This issue was one of the government forcing a catholic charity with a firm religious belief against contraceptives to provide them to their employees through their health care plan. 

There are many ways around this if the outcome is that you wanted to provide people with contraceptives, rather than spend a decade dragging a bunch of nuns through the courts to force them to do something that goes against their faith. 

Also, Jesus did heal the sick, he didn't go around using Caeser to force others to do it for him. 

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

How so?

Did you get any answers?

[User]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you get any answers?

LOL, are you off your medication and your other personality back to ignoring me?

[SkyHigh]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you get any answers?

I'll give you three guesses , but the first two don't count. 

[User]

26 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I'll give you three guesses , but the first two don't count. 

You ignored Democrats bullying a bunch of nuns for over a decade... 

How about another?

Obama administration trying to change the long-held ministerial exception <- Courts Rejected

[SkyHigh]

37 minutes ago, User said:

You ignored Democrats bullying a bunch of nuns for over a decade... 

How about another?

Obama administration trying to change the long-held ministerial exception <- Courts Rejected

I don't think requiring them to provide basic health care is bullying.

Ministerial exceptions? If this is in regards to the tax free status of self proclaimed churchs , I don't think any religious institution should be granted, not for profit status unless they're willing to open up the books to prove they are using their money to help everyone in the community not just their flock (yes , I'm purposely making a sheep reference) 

If it has to do with something else, ignore that last paragraph and please explain what ministerial exception is. Cheers 

[User]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

I don't think requiring them to provide basic health care is bullying.

Of course it is. They are a devout Catholic organization with long held religious views on contraceptives. Dragging them through the courts trying to beat them into submission is the very definition of bullying them. 

Contraceptives are not "basic health care"

If the problem being addressed here was that you want folks to have contraceptives, then there are other ways of providing it than demanding a bunch of nuns do it for you. 

11 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

If it has to do with something else, ignore that last paragraph and please explain what ministerial exception is. Cheers 

Sure, I will just ignore your clear hate for a church taking care of their members and you wanting to audit their books demanding they must also serve the wider public to your satisfaction... yeah, that aside... 

No, the Obama administration was going after the long held Ministerial exception in law and practice regarding the government not being able to meddle in the hiring decisions of a religious institution, specifically who they can and can't choose as their spiritual leaders. 

Obama admin tried to argue in court this should not exist as it does and yet again, they got smacked down 9-0 ruling from SCOTUS. 

 

[Rebound]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:04 PM, West said:

I've been reading recently about "institutional kidnapping" in banana Republics. It's not that far off from what the whackos coming out of the Marxists coming out of law schools are doing in the US. 

 

Kamala Harris is one of those whackos. If she gets it look out. 

I don't understand what "whackos coming out of the Marxists coming out of law schools" means, but...

Sixty years ago, a restaurant could say that black people couldn't be served because they were black. Was it Marxism when that practice was outlawed? Because I don't see much difference between a restaurant discriminating against black people and a baker discriminating against gay people. 

I read Marx, by the way, and didn't see anything about black people or gay people, so I don't understand what any of this has to do with Marxism, so maybe you could explain that to us. 

[SkyHigh]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Of course it is. They are a devout Catholic organization with long held religious views on contraceptives. Dragging them through the courts trying to beat them into submission is the very definition of bullying them. 

Contraceptives are not "basic health care"

If the problem being addressed here was that you want folks to have contraceptives, then there are other ways of providing it than demanding a bunch of nuns do it for you. 

Sure, I will just ignore your clear hate for a church taking care of their members and you wanting to audit their books demanding they must also serve the wider public to your satisfaction... yeah, that aside... 

No, the Obama administration was going after the long held Ministerial exception in law and practice regarding the government not being able to meddle in the hiring decisions of a religious institution, specifically who they can and can't choose as their spiritual leaders. 

Obama admin tried to argue in court this should not exist as it does and yet again, they got smacked down 9-0 ruling from SCOTUS. 

 

Nope health care is a basic human right and yes birth control is basic health care, some women use the pill for other health reasons.

I believe tax free status should be reserved for those that use the money to help all people regardless of their religious or political affiliation (so not just churches)

If it's true that the Obama administration tried to meddle in who any nongovernmental organization can or cannot hire, I would be 100% against that, but my guess is you're just mistaken or outright lying 

Could you provide the case number for this ruling?