To bake or not to bake
- Thread starter squirt
- Start date
and it's rude to force someone to participate in something they don't believe in
honestly, I don't understand why it's an issue, if you're not happy about my wedding, I don't want you anywhere near it!
the farmer respects the same sex couple's right to be married, why is it asking too much for the same sex couple to respect the farmer's right not to celebrate it?
honestly, I don't understand why it's an issue, if you're not happy about my wedding, I don't want you anywhere near it!
the farmer respects the same sex couple's right to be married, why is it asking too much for the same sex couple to respect the farmer's right not to celebrate it?
Last edited:
I don't want to put any in there, but it looks like you do, you thought of it
we are to love everybody, but we can love the sinner while hating the sin
the key word there is "love"
God doesn't care who we love, and you damn well know it
what is God's issue with same sex relationships? is it the love? or is it the sex?
we are to love everybody, but we can love the sinner while hating the sin
the key word there is "love"
God doesn't care who we love, and you damn well know it
what is God's issue with same sex relationships? is it the love? or is it the sex?
you're very narrowly walking the line where you're not pointing the finger at me, Vinnie
I'll tell you where I stand: I don't give a flyin' flip what you do in your love life, and I don't expect you care about what I do in mine
I don't believe gays are going to hell, because I'd have to join them for the trip, Lord knows my life has been far from perfect
in fact, I don't even believe in hell, I believe hell is on earth, and we reap the consequences for our sins in the here and now, I've certainly paid for mine
I'm the last person in the room to realize someone is gay, by that time, I've already noticed your beautiful smile or your gorgeous brown eyes, or the lovely dress you have on
if you need help, I'm the first person there, the last person to leave, period
racism and bigotry are thrown around way too casually these days, if I don't agree with you, I must be a racist and/or bigot
or maybe ... just maybe ... I'm somebody who believes that every person has the right to decide for themselves, and I don't have the right to force my views down your throat
I'll tell you where I stand: I don't give a flyin' flip what you do in your love life, and I don't expect you care about what I do in mine
I don't believe gays are going to hell, because I'd have to join them for the trip, Lord knows my life has been far from perfect
in fact, I don't even believe in hell, I believe hell is on earth, and we reap the consequences for our sins in the here and now, I've certainly paid for mine
I'm the last person in the room to realize someone is gay, by that time, I've already noticed your beautiful smile or your gorgeous brown eyes, or the lovely dress you have on
if you need help, I'm the first person there, the last person to leave, period
racism and bigotry are thrown around way too casually these days, if I don't agree with you, I must be a racist and/or bigot
or maybe ... just maybe ... I'm somebody who believes that every person has the right to decide for themselves, and I don't have the right to force my views down your throat
I think you are confusing the fa t I'm presenting the moral dilemma with an accusation personally. This is not my intent.
What I'm trying you make you deal with is the consequence of permitting discrimination.
I assume you are uncomfortable with permitting racial or sexual discrimination in education or employment? How far should that principle be taken?
If I a, permitted to refuse service to a class of persons due to a criterion I alone specify then what if I am the only supplier of that service?
If a baker can refuse to make a cake then can a water supplier refuse to supply water? Can a medic refuse to treat? If not, why not?
What I'm trying you make you deal with is the consequence of permitting discrimination.
I assume you are uncomfortable with permitting racial or sexual discrimination in education or employment? How far should that principle be taken?
If I a, permitted to refuse service to a class of persons due to a criterion I alone specify then what if I am the only supplier of that service?
If a baker can refuse to make a cake then can a water supplier refuse to supply water? Can a medic refuse to treat? If not, why not?
There will always be discrimination! Muslims discriminate against homosexuals, infidels, etc.
If I have one kidney to donate and two people demand it, whoever is not chosen can cry discrimination. based on whatever, age, sex, race, money, whatever.
King Solomon had the exact same situation, according to the scriptures. You can't cut the baby in half.
So deal with your own doubts and inadequacies, and we will deal with ours.
If I have one kidney to donate and two people demand it, whoever is not chosen can cry discrimination. based on whatever, age, sex, race, money, whatever.
King Solomon had the exact same situation, according to the scriptures. You can't cut the baby in half.
So deal with your own doubts and inadequacies, and we will deal with ours.
there's a difference in baking cupcakes for a birthday and making a designer cake for a wedding
to many, a wedding is a holy union between a man and a woman, it is a religious act
there's also a difference between an open to the public business, and private property that is rented for private events
as I said, your rights end where mine start, that's how far it should be taken, and no further
you have the right to get married as a gay person, and you have a right to order a wedding cake from a bakery
what you don't have the right to do is shop bakeries until you find the ONE that says no, and then take them to court to get your way, harassing them along the way with threatening phone calls, walking by the store and giving the owner the finger, sending death threats, and forcing them into financial distress with legal fees
you have the right to a same sex wedding, and you have the right to have it in a lovely place
what you don't have the right to do is force somebody to allow that wedding to take place on their personally owned property, and you don't have the right to take away their livelihood by banning them from markets, THEN taking them to court to get your way, sending death threats, and forcing them into financial distress over legal fees
to many, a wedding is a holy union between a man and a woman, it is a religious act
there's also a difference between an open to the public business, and private property that is rented for private events
as I said, your rights end where mine start, that's how far it should be taken, and no further
you have the right to get married as a gay person, and you have a right to order a wedding cake from a bakery
what you don't have the right to do is shop bakeries until you find the ONE that says no, and then take them to court to get your way, harassing them along the way with threatening phone calls, walking by the store and giving the owner the finger, sending death threats, and forcing them into financial distress with legal fees
you have the right to a same sex wedding, and you have the right to have it in a lovely place
what you don't have the right to do is force somebody to allow that wedding to take place on their personally owned property, and you don't have the right to take away their livelihood by banning them from markets, THEN taking them to court to get your way, sending death threats, and forcing them into financial distress over legal fees
What I'm asking you to do is to extend the consequence of that decision. You do not have the right to demand service from anyone. Does this mean that you may refuse service to any one? If so, are there any circumstance where you may not refuse service? What would these be?
Take my example of the supply of water. If this bakery was, instead, a water supply company, could they have refused to supply water to a gay couples home? If not, why not?
This is the reason I'd like to see the full text if the decision. There are several passages in the bible that would support race or sex discrimination and these can be exploited by the unscrupulous.
Take my example of the supply of water. If this bakery was, instead, a water supply company, could they have refused to supply water to a gay couples home? If not, why not?
This is the reason I'd like to see the full text if the decision. There are several passages in the bible that would support race or sex discrimination and these can be exploited by the unscrupulous.
the decision is available online
I just read a good portion of it
like I said, the justices did not address the key issue ... when one right conflicts with another
it was very interesting reading all the same
for instance: I didn't know that the Colorado commission had adjudicated similar cases in favor of the baker, citing the text that was being asked to put on a cake conflicted with religious doctrine
the Court's premiere issue seemed to be how the state handled the rights of the baker, especially when compared to similar cases that were handled differently, the decision stated:
For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.
they go on to say:
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
your example of the water supply isn't really applicable, we all have to have water to live
a more direct answer to your question is obscure at best
these things are going to have to be decided on a case by case basis, and the Court said so:
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.
this baker had provided goods to this couple for other events, he didn't refuse service, he only declined to use his artistic talent to create a cake intended to celebrate a same sex marriage, the couple had choices: they could try to ruin the baker by taking him to court, they could take their business elsewhere, or they could have done the "tolerant" thing they were preaching and just ordered that particular cake from another bakery, we know which one they chose
I just read a good portion of it
like I said, the justices did not address the key issue ... when one right conflicts with another
it was very interesting reading all the same
for instance: I didn't know that the Colorado commission had adjudicated similar cases in favor of the baker, citing the text that was being asked to put on a cake conflicted with religious doctrine
the Court's premiere issue seemed to be how the state handled the rights of the baker, especially when compared to similar cases that were handled differently, the decision stated:
For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.
they go on to say:
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
your example of the water supply isn't really applicable, we all have to have water to live
a more direct answer to your question is obscure at best
these things are going to have to be decided on a case by case basis, and the Court said so:
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.
this baker had provided goods to this couple for other events, he didn't refuse service, he only declined to use his artistic talent to create a cake intended to celebrate a same sex marriage, the couple had choices: they could try to ruin the baker by taking him to court, they could take their business elsewhere, or they could have done the "tolerant" thing they were preaching and just ordered that particular cake from another bakery, we know which one they chose
they sure didn't do themselves any favors
I bookmarked an article I was reading this morning, it's just an opinion piece, but it makes a lot of sense, and addresses some of the points you brought up:
Opinion: Loose lips sank the Colorado baker’s case
I would like to share a bit of it:
Friends of the First Amendment should not be impatient for the court to embark on drawing ever-finer distinctions about which commercial transactions, by which kinds of believers, involving which kinds of ceremonies, implicate the Constitution’s free speech and free exercise guarantees. Taking religious advice, the court on Monday acted on the principle that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,” which means: Cope with today’s ample troubles and cope with tomorrow’s when they arrive, as surely they will.
I know why the Court focused on the government's actions, in their view, it was the worst of all transgressions involved
the thing that most people don't understand about our Bill of Rights is that it DOES NOT grant rights to citizens
our Constitution declares that our rights are bestowed by God, NOT the government
the Bill of Rights tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do in regards to those rights
and the Court sent a loud and clear message to the lower courts that bias against religion by the government will not be tolerated
I bookmarked an article I was reading this morning, it's just an opinion piece, but it makes a lot of sense, and addresses some of the points you brought up:
Opinion: Loose lips sank the Colorado baker’s case
I would like to share a bit of it:
Friends of the First Amendment should not be impatient for the court to embark on drawing ever-finer distinctions about which commercial transactions, by which kinds of believers, involving which kinds of ceremonies, implicate the Constitution’s free speech and free exercise guarantees. Taking religious advice, the court on Monday acted on the principle that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,” which means: Cope with today’s ample troubles and cope with tomorrow’s when they arrive, as surely they will.
I know why the Court focused on the government's actions, in their view, it was the worst of all transgressions involved
the thing that most people don't understand about our Bill of Rights is that it DOES NOT grant rights to citizens
our Constitution declares that our rights are bestowed by God, NOT the government
the Bill of Rights tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do in regards to those rights
and the Court sent a loud and clear message to the lower courts that bias against religion by the government will not be tolerated
Not sure I agree with this part. What your constitution does in limit the power of the executive versus the citizen.
You have all rights granted by God but then so does the Executive. The constitution limits the extent by whiuch the executive can limit the citizens rights. God really does not enter into it, you dop not live in a theocracy.
You have all rights granted by God but then so does the Executive. The constitution limits the extent by whiuch the executive can limit the citizens rights. God really does not enter into it, you dop not live in a theocracy.
I stand corrected, it's not in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence, God (our Creator) really does enter into it, even if they didn't agree on a particular faith (and rightly so)
Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country
but the point remains the same, our rights do not come from the government, they come from God
and the Bill of Rights tells the government what it can and cannot do about those rights, it limits the government's power, not the citizens'
and the Supreme Court was not happy with how the state of Colorado treated the baker ... they said so!
Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country
but the point remains the same, our rights do not come from the government, they come from God
and the Bill of Rights tells the government what it can and cannot do about those rights, it limits the government's power, not the citizens'
and the Supreme Court was not happy with how the state of Colorado treated the baker ... they said so!
people are rude all the time..doesnt mean they are breaking any laws..AS FAR AS 1 RELATIONSHIP BEING MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER...THATS EXACTLY WHAT THAT COUPLE WAS DOING....making their reationship more important to the relationship the baker has with GOD
theses special interest groups need to grow the fuck up and stop forcing their opinions and lifestyles on those that dont agree with them...teachers need to start teaching students to think....NOT how to think ...
theses special interest groups need to grow the fuck up and stop forcing their opinions and lifestyles on those that dont agree with them...teachers need to start teaching students to think....NOT how to think ...
Last edited:
in our constitutional republic, the powers don't flow from the government to the people
the people grant the government powers, and among those powers is the responsibility of the government to protect our God given rights
the Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution, so why did the founders feel it necessary to add it?
they felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in protecting specific rights
the people grant the government powers, and among those powers is the responsibility of the government to protect our God given rights
the Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution, so why did the founders feel it necessary to add it?
they felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in protecting specific rights