Posted on 02/09/2018 9:06:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Another lesson we MUST learn: the Judicial Branch of the government (SCOTUS) has NO power to make national law. The Constitution limits the scope SCOTUS’ power to INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES (U.S. Const, art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1). The ONLY branch constitutionally authorized to make nation law is the Legislative Branch - Congress (”ALL legislative powers...” art. I, sec. 1).
THAT can also not be emphasized enough.
I don't know how that will fly. If she's a sole proprietor then every cake in the bakery was done by her and every one could be said to be an artistic expression. So one off the rack should be no different than one special ordered, especially since the gay couple didn't request any wording or special decorations for their own cake. The judge should probably have left that part out and stuck with the simple "artistic expression" as her reason regardless of when the cake was made.
RE: Another lesson we MUST learn: the Judicial Branch of the government (SCOTUS) has NO power to make national law.
So, does that mean that the decision to legalize gay marriage by the Kennedy led opinion of the SCOTUS is NOT BINDING on the States?
You make the same mistake that the left makes.
This particular issue is NOT about serving somebody because orf what they are. I'm sure the bakery would gladly serve homos.
What they are refusing to serve is "gay marriage." Which is an entirely different concept than discriminating against a person.
It would be the same as saying that because I refuse to bake you a Hitler Nazi cake, I am discriminating against you because you are white. See the difference?
RE: I’ve been saying for a while that if the queers want a cake, some pictures, or anything else for their conterfeit marriages, then they should open a bakery, an photo shop, and other businesses that will accommodate them and leave the rest of us ALONE.
They already know that. It’s not as if there were no other bakers in town who would do the work for them... it is NOT about their “wedding”, it is TO FORCE AN AGENDA to be made public and nationally binding.
I did not know these facts. ThankQ for cheering up my day, goodman. :)
That is correct.
It is also not binding on the parties of the case because it is patently unconstitutional, thus, invalid and should be ignored as null and void.
My home town!
Stick it to those commies, Bakersfield!
But it’s not different. Jesus served the thieves, the hookers, the adulterers... That’s not a race thing, that’s a lifestyle choice, just as homo is a lifestyle choice.
“I did not know these facts. ThankQ for cheering up my day, goodman. :)”
Glad to be of service. They days are getting “gooder” as each day passes.
#MAGA
I doubt she has to worry about that anymore, given the publicity around this.
For once, a judge rules for religious freedom!
JoMa
Right you are. And because the bakers didn't refuse service due to the lesbian's "lifestyle choice" but rather a government sanctioned INSTITUTION (gay marriage) they did not discriminate due to a lifestyle choice.
I am unlearned in this matter, but it seems to me that Jesus himself would not condone "gay marriage." That man/woman cleaving thing and "be fruitful and multiply" thing is all over the Bible, right?
But like I said, I'm no expert and have no right to speak for Jesus.
Jesus told the adulterous woman to stop sinning. Jesus called Matthew out of the wicked actions he was doing as a tax collector. Jesus changed the life of Zaccheus so that he stopped cheating people.
Jesus did not applaud, endorse, or promote sin.
Besides, the first amendment applies.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/us/sonia-sotomayor-low-blood-sugar/index.html
Yup. And she’s lazy about it and goes by ‘how she feels’ instead of blood testing.
Now you’re on to a subject that makes me mad... the government should not be sanctioning ANY marriage. At best, the government can create their own civil unions and do whatever the heck they want with that.
Marriage is a union before God between a man and a woman. Period.
You are correct, He hated the sin, not the sinner. What better way to spread His love, His Word.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying here on FR for years now. I was even told that this argument was “too nuanced”. It’s exactly the argument. It is really a free speech issue where, in this specific instance, the religious values are involved. This doesn’t have to be the case however, it could be a black man running a printing shop where he’s asked to print flyers for a KKK rally. You would expect him to kick them out the door, nobody would take issue. Of course, this is really about lefty hatred for Christian’s and forcing them to do something they’re against. They’re engaging in tyranny just as the judge explains.
Every time one of these lawsuits come up, “tyrannical bigot” should be hurled at the accusers.
Agreed, but they do.
Reality can be a Hillary.
Marriage is a union before God between a man and a woman.
Again, right you are. But you do realize that statement discrimates in exactly the same way the bakers did. You should rethink your stance on this issue. The bakers have every right to refuse to support and serve an institution that discriminates against THEIR lifestyle choice.
With all due respect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.