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.
I'd heard the Christian hellfire and brimstone baker and the gay customers were friends, and repeat customers. The Christian Hellfire and brimstone baker had done many cakes for the fellas before and whatnot.
And such as like.
Not sure where you get "anti-gay" baker.
You got a link to that?
Hashtag anti-gay pushback.
The issue bere isn't being anti-gay. It's about making a wedding cake for two individuals of the same gender/sex/whatnot. But thank you for your input.
Interesting point.
What chapter of the New Testament is the jurisprudence commandments in? Revelations
Freedom is God-given, flying spaghetti monster given, nature given, what have you, and such as like.
Liberty is fought for and defended.
Did I mention they were once friends, until a lawyer got hired?
I'm guessing the gay couple that is refused a wedding cake is going to make sure the locals know. And that is their right. Odds are it will cost the bakery. Not too many gay couples that are refused a wedding cake are going to go back and buy Sunday croissants after that.
Exactly. CO can no longer discriminate based on religion. HUGE step forward in Constitutional Rights.
Gad! Assume much?
No...and...no. This had nothing to do with Colorado..as a whole..and no one ever said that the entire State of Colorado discriminated on the basis of religion.
This was about the Colorado Civil Rights commission and their ruling..which was IMO egregious and discriminatory.
The SCOTUS agreed..and now the case goes back to the commission for further review and a new ruling--don't be surprised if the ruling goes against the baker..you know how much petty bureaucrats love being overturned!
It is a sad day in America when Christians cheer a most un-Christian stance. WWJD? He preached love and acceptance, not bigotry. Just as the GOP has been co-opted and corrupted by trump, so has Christianity by the evangelicals.
Don't mistaken Jesus' objective of reaching out to sinners for repentance to embracing their sinful lifestyles. Jesus is Holy, and so are His followers.
I don't know that it will go that far but I don't know how it can't go further than this particular case. Courts and commissions all over the country will look at this ruling when deciding cases. It doesn't mean it will sway everyone but it most certainly will affect rulings.
As it should...religious liberty is as important as the freedom not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. The Colorado commission was out of line--has anyone here read the minutes of the comission's meeting? It was a Christian bashing session extraordinaire.
I'm guessing the gay couple that is refused a wedding cake is going to make sure the locals know. And that is their right. Odds are it will cost the bakery. Not too many gay couples that are refused a wedding cake are going to go back and buy Sunday croissants after that.
Despite being part of the LGBT+ community myself, and active in Leather groups and such, I do feel that baker should have had the right to refuse service to any customer for any (or no) reason. The customer should then have the free right to go tell everyone they know and post reviews all over the internet about it if they want. I'm more about freedom, than not.
There was only one argument that made sense to me in the other direction, which was "suppose it was a rural critical service and could only have been got in one place for 500 miles or something?" Well, it wasn't. But I think an example of a useful level of sanity in that situation... If you could prove that you are the only business for some kind of a radius providing something "essential" such as gasoline, a utility service, medical services, groceries, etc. Something crucial to living. Then maybe there could be a tax incentive for that, which would go along with a clause of non-discrimination.
That is pretty much the extent of government involvement I'd accept in such a situation. Found to be discriminating in some service necessary for life, against someone based on color, creed, orientation, etc. and you lose some significant tax break. Enough of one to reward people for providing that service, and also to punish them for withholding it from anyone who needed it.
But a wedding cake bakery in a city like Denver? Come on...give 'em bad reviews, get your friends to give 'em bad reviews, and find another bakery to give your money to. Maybe a minority or LGBT+ owned one, if you really want to make a statement. I just don't feel that government pressure (even a lawsuit) made sense.
The term "narrow" does not refer to the margin, i.e. 5-4 or 7-2. It refers to the scope or broadness of the decision. The decision turned on the perceived unfairness of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in favor of the right of a merchant not to promote anti-gay activities. Here are excerpts from the decision:
The Court focused on "content neutrality" which is fundamental to First Amendment analysis, stating:
*****************
The decision was very light on case citation. A decision breaking new ground probably should be narrow in scope in order to learn practical implications. Even Brown v. Board of Education was limited to schools. Over the ensuing years there were similar decisions desegregating beaches, public pools and other similar facilities.
Expect this decision to be construed in a way that restricts the ability of states and municipalities to be politically correct.
Compared to Obergefell, which was broad in its scope but decided 5-4.
A smart Chief Justice tries to organize 7-2 or better, or at the very least 6-3 when dealing with hotly contested issues. A 5-4 is just too likely to be reversed by the fickle results of elections. Even Roe v. Wade, a somewhat questionable decision (I agree with the result but not the reasoning) has survived the test of time, though not easily or without challenge. If that were 5-4 it would have been overturned a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
Actually, it is what the SCOTUS does.... always.
The Supreme Court has to focus on broad issues of law, not justice in individual cases.
And again....you don't do that by turning them away.
Inclusion vs Exclusion--probably one of the biggest divides in the Christian faith, right now.
Christ said:
Matthew 25:37-40Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Then there's those pesky verses about judgment...
I'm just saying..let God decide--here on earth..be kind..and bake the damn 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.
