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.
The case you refer to is substantially different in measure and kind. There is no burden placed upon the baker by baking a wedding cake as was held in the Hobby Lobby Case.
The court held that the HHS contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion, rejecting an argument that the $2,000-per-employee penalty for dropping insurance coverage is less than the average cost of health insurance.
The ruling was on much narrower grounds. In the baker's case there is no burden placed upon him by the state of CO demanding that he not discriminate. Secondly, the moral conscience clause was reviewed it was not the basis of the SC decision.
The case you refer to is substantially different in measure and kind. There is no burden placed upon the baker by baking a wedding cake as was held in the Hobby Lobby Case.
Yes, there is. Creating a special-order item specifically for a same sex wedding violates his Religion. He's Baptist.
Had the couple just bought a ready-made cake off the shelf, as they had done before, there'd be no problem. He would have sold it to them, as he had previously done on several occasions.
Go with God. I make no apology for my feelings about these conniving mindless people.
Because people who don't like you are, prima facie, mindless and conniving. Do we see why Freedom is so important? Do we see how easily little Kim Jong-uns can form when we give people the power to shove themselves down the throats of others?
This is a bad and evil viewpoint. If someone has a religious problem with how you run your life and how you behave, they should have the right to do business with you, or not do business with you, based on their personal preference. Even if it's irrational, and even if you don't like it. You are free to seek out others to do business with you. And if no one wants to do business with you? Too bad. That's freedom. You can't force people to deal with others who they don't like and don't want to be around. And you should have that same freedom.
It's indecent and immoral and mean and nasty to force yourself into the lives of those who don't like you and don't want you.
And if a baker wants to exclude gays, let him. It's his right. The public and the Internet will take care of this nicely, and businesses that act irrationally, or publicly exclude certain groups, will sink from their own malice.
Are you so afraid of freedom that you are willing to use the force of law to shove yourself down the throats of others who don't like you?
That's a terrible way to think.
Though I have my opinion(s) about who is more or less right and/or wrong about these positions, I can easily understand both sides of this legal issue and/or moral dilemma. Either way, I suspect it is probably more wrong than right to accuse either side of having a "bad" or "evil" viewpoint when obviously the issue is one of exercising our rights while also having them protected -- for all of us. Not who is evil and who is not...
With that said, attempting to consider this issue in more of a critical thinking standpoint, mature and reasonable like, I wonder what you might say to the baker who decides he must question all his patrons as to their beliefs or else he may be serving people who are not congruent with his beliefs? I mean, if the idea is to not serve gays in any way for that reason like he would other patrons, or if it is okay to serve gays in that way as long as he doesn't know they are gay, how much sense does any of that make?
Knowingly or unknowingly, the baker is serving gays just like he is serving others, also possibly rapists, pedophiles and others. Whether they buy at his bakery or another, what divine purpose is being served here? What ultimate outcome? Hell, the gay couple could have had a friend order their cake with no one knowing the wiser, including the baker, and what? The baker doesn't know he is serving people who don't necessarily share his religious beliefs? Only when he finds out does he care to object?
The logic here is lost on me, and as such, I also struggle with the "right" of the bakers actions to single anyone out for no real good reason, other than what? Kid himself into thinking he is making a difference with gays or God by taking such action? Not sure about "bad" or "evil" in this case, but intelligent, practical or reasonable? No...
People are overthinking this. If a baker didn't want to sell me a cake because he didn't like tall people and I knew he didn't sell cakes to tall people, why would I give him my money? I'd be afraid to eat that cake!
Because people who don't like you are, prima facie, mindless and conniving. Do we see why Freedom is so important? Do we see how easily little Kim Jong-uns can form when we give people the power to shove themselves down the throats of others?
Ridiculous this!
To compare what challenges we face in these regards related to our civil rights, protected by our constitution, laws intended to balance our interests in those respects, to the opposite suffered by poor people in regimes ruled by despots like in North Korea where there is no such process is way off the deep end of extremism.
The people in North Korea, if they knew better, would be absolutely delighted to enjoy the possibility that even the rights of gays are protected in this country where in others like North Korea gays are persecuted up to and including their execution.
To compare what challenges we face in these regards related to our civil rights, protected by our constitution, laws intended to balance our interests in those respects, to the opposite suffered by poor people in regimes ruled by despots like in North Korea where there is no such process is way off the deep end of extremism.
What 'Civil Rights?' LGBT Status is not a Federally Protected Class. Religion is.
People are overthinking this. If a baker didn't want to sell me a cake because he didn't like tall people and I knew he didn't sell cakes to tall people, why would I give him my money? I'd be afraid to eat that cake!
Exactly. The baker need only have a store entrance about 5 feet tall, and problem solved...
Just like the problem of me wasting time is solved by simply signing off now! Until tomorrow, here's to having the cake and eating it too! Gay or not!
"Let them eat cake."
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.
