Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Immoral by whose standard? Because there are plenty of Christian denominations who claim that it is not immoral. There are other religions - some sects of Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, any of the neo-pagan, or wiccaan religions, or of course the non-religious (be it atheist or agnostic) who have no problem with homosexuality.
This country is not to be legislated by any religion. We have a freedom of religion in this country, we do not make our laws by the Bible, and the rights of ALL citizens are to be protected.
You are quite misinformed. There is no major religion in the world that accepts homosexual activity. Any group that accepts homosexual acts is not Christian, not matter what they call themselves. Immoral by whose standards? God Almighty.
You are quite misinformed. There is no major religion in the world that accepts homosexual activity. Any group that accepts homosexual acts is not Christian, not matter what they call themselves. Immoral by whose standards? God Almighty.
How about the same immoral activity performed by straight people? Those OK?
Cause you just KNOW that a straight couple will be doing the same thing.
Maybe the baker should get them to sign an oath in blood before selling them a cake, with surprise inspections.
How about the same immoral activity performed by straight people? Those OK?
Cause you just KNOW that a straight couple will be doing the same thing.
Maybe the baker should get them to sign an oath in blood before selling them a cake, with surprise inspections.
There is no loving sexual act between a man and his wife that is immoral. Marriage between man and woman is sanctified by God.
Immoral by whose standard? Because there are plenty of Christian denominations who claim that it is not immoral. There are other religions - some sects of Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, any of the neo-pagan, or wiccaan religions, or of course the non-religious (be it atheist or agnostic) who have no problem with homosexuality.
This country is not to be legislated by any religion. We have a freedom of religion in this country, we do not make our laws by the Bible, and the rights of ALL citizens are to be protected.
The bakers rights weren't protected.
Gays can go anywhere to get a wedding cake.
A friend of mine is a devout Catholic and very much against gay marriage.....yet, he plays at gay weddings.
Suspect classes refers to classifications that are afforded Constitutional heightened protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Suspect classes are afforded strict scrutiny; quasi-suspect classes are afforded intermediate review; and all other classes are given rational review.
From Wikipedia...
Quote:
Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Gender and classification." Gender and legitimacy of birth have been held to be quasi-suspect classes. In 2012, the U.S District Court for Northern California discussed this type of classification, but applied heightened scrutiny without specifically labeling gays and lesbians a suspect or quasi-suspect class in itsdecision. Striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny. It was the first time a federal court had applied quasi-suspect classification in a sexual orientation case. classification in a sexual orientation case.
The Supreme Court has never held that sexual orientation is either a suspect or quasi-suspect class. In Windsor, the Court held that DOMA didn't even meet the lowest, rational basis standard.
Quote:
Most notably, in Windsor v. United States, the majority expressly held that classifications based on sexual orientation should receive a heightened level of scrutiny, often termed “intermediate scrutiny.” It was the first court to make such a determination without also assessing the constitutionality of the law under a lower level of scrutiny. Applying this heightened scrutiny, the Second Circuit majority found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.
A friend of mine is a devout Catholic and very much against gay marriage.....yet, he plays at gay weddings.
It's all up to the individual.
But should he be forced to play at gay pseudo-weddings just because two gay guys (or women) are fond of his music? Doesn't he have the right to not perform simply because he chooses not to at a particular venue or event?
I have read this tread and its turn into a Gay Rally! The bottom line the Bakers rights were abuses and the baker can pick and choose who he does business with. This guy is offended with the gay wedding.
What wrong with that? As far as I am concern this "couple should just find a Gay Baker.
This is a political stunt and I don't care. If gay people want to commit sin and sue their way to the Supreme Court its their business. This does not further their cause.
I have read this tread and its turn into a Gay Rally!
It always does. CD Forum is Gay Central.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Side Ways!
