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.
It actually doesn't make a difference. Stock cakes are stock cakes. Three-tier stock cakes are still stock cakes. You are arguing that just calling it a wedding cake makes it a work of art. But that's ridiculous. There are people who buy their wedding cakes at Wal-Mart. Plain cakes where some person in the bakery writes "Congratulations" and that isn't art. The Kleins' refusal was about where the cake would be served. Not about artistry. Not about free speech. But about venue. And the law in Oregon doesn't allow them to refuse for that reason. Venue does not equal participation. That's what the courts have been finding in these cases, and we'll have to see what the Supreme Court says. As conservative as this court is, I would be troubled if they ruled in favor of the bakers, because it opens the door to business people being able to refuse for any reason, as long as they cite the reason is religious. There are religions that believe that being black is the mark of Cain, and that black people are cursed. What if a bakery refused to make a birthday cake for a child because he was black? What if a bakery refused to make bar mitzvah cakes? What if a bakery refused to make a cake for a couple because one of the couple was Catholic and one was not? There is a slippery slope in allowing businesses to deny services to people the businesses decide aren't worthy. It's not like denying someone because they can't pay. It's denying someone because they are different.
It actually doesn't make a difference. Stock cakes are stock cakes. Three-tier stock cakes are still stock cakes. You are arguing that just calling it a wedding cake makes it a work of art. But that's ridiculous. There are people who buy their wedding cakes at Wal-Mart. Plain cakes where some person in the bakery writes "Congratulations" and that isn't art. The Kleins' refusal was about where the cake would be served. Not about artistry. Not about free speech. But about venue. And the law in Oregon doesn't allow them to refuse for that reason. Venue does not equal participation. That's what the courts have been finding in these cases, and we'll have to see what the Supreme Court says. As conservative as this court is, I would be troubled if they ruled in favor of the bakers, because it opens the door to business people being able to refuse for any reason, as long as they cite the reason is religious. There are religions that believe that being black is the mark of Cain, and that black people are cursed. What if a bakery refused to make a birthday cake for a child because he was black? What if a bakery refused to make bar mitzvah cakes? What if a bakery refused to make a cake for a couple because one of the couple was Catholic and one was not? There is a slippery slope in allowing businesses to deny services to people the businesses decide aren't worthy. It's not like denying someone because they can't pay. It's denying someone because they are different.
I see where you're getting at, but that's not what is at stake here. Nor is it what the couple in this case requested. Instead, they explicitly requested (and the state seeks to compel) that the baker create a work of art explicitly for the purpose of an occasion (i.e. same sex wedding) that the baker disagrees with. That's where the difference between selling a pre-made stock cake to any/every customer vs. being compelled to create art/expression for a purpose that you disagree with. Note, the stock cake is art, too, but its art that the baker already created to sell to the general public; it would be another thing entirely to deny someone who is willing to buy what was already created if they offer the asking price for the item . . . but that's not what have here (at least not in the Masterpiece Cake case and I can't find anything to suggest that's what we have in this case either).
Also, I don't see the flood gates being opened if the Supreme Court (as many expect) rules against the couple in the Masterpiece Cake case. I'd expect the Court's decision to be pretty narrowly tailored, carving out an exception that prohibits government from being able to compel artists to create what goes against their belief system, not allowing businesses that choose to engage with the public to discriminate (or prohibiting government from stopping such discrimination) carte blanche against an entire class of people because of who those people are. That's not we have in the Masterpiece Cake case (where the baker explicitly says he's happy to and sells to gays for every other reason essentially) and I haven't read anything to suggest that's what we have in this case.
Leviticus 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.1. Leviticus
20:13, If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.
There were self-righteous *******s even back in the day.
Please show us the scripture where Jesus Christ encouraged people to treat others this way.
They were self-righteous *******s even back in the day.
Please show us the scripture where Jesus Christ encouraged people to treat others this way.
Okay, got it. "Be Christians" is only applicable for the Left insofar as it jives with their political goals. However, when it is pointed out that Christianity does not jive with their political goals, it turns out that Christians are self righteous in a manner that has them dismissed.
Talking to a cat would be better time spent than arguing with liberals.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Okay, got it. "Be Christians" is only applicable for the Left insofar as it jives with their political goals. However, when it is pointed out that Christianity does not jive with their political goals, it turns out that Christians are self righteous in a manner that has them dismissed.
Talking to a cat would be better time spent than arguing with liberals.
Talking to a wall would be time better spent than expecting a reasonable response from the self-righteous to "Please show us the scripture where Jesus Christ encouraged people to treat others this way."
Homosexuality could be a sin. If it is, it's not my problem. That is up to the person and God. The Bible also states "Love thy neighbor as thyself". My God hasn't instructed me to condemn anyone. My God has said that it is his business to do that, not me. If it's a sin God can deal with it far better than my meager understanding of things.
The Bible also instructs that gossiping is a sin and I doubt there is anyone that can avoid that one so........... God didn't instruct that it's OK to sin a little bit.
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.
