Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,683,804 times
Reputation: 4674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Except it was an overblown fine from a biased government showing conflict of interest. The guy who determined the fine was even attending gay pride events. If he had been attending anti-homosexual church groups, gay supporters would be going ballistic.
But fundamentalists only understand "overblown" punishment. After all, don't you teach that people are going to hell for doing---nothing at all?

Therefore the judge got your attention. I think it would have made better sense to incarcerate both of them for six months or so. Then you could really be outraged by the punishment you wish to visit on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,761,037 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Anti-gay bakery owners must pay $135.000 to lesbian couple

After the bakery owners went to the Internet to raise money, the court has decided that that same couple and bakery owners owe the lesbian couple who they denied a wedding cake, $135,000.

Maybe that finally sends the message that no you cannot discriminate against same sex marriage or those who are LBQT.

Of course we can expect outrage by some of the religious fundamentalist around the country. Get into the 21st century, because the rest the world really doesn't care.
I'm not against gay marriage but this decision rubs me wrong and seems to be an affront to the freedoms of the business/baker. That baker/bakery was prohibited from NOT doing something... usually people are penalized for doing something wrong.

Turn it around somewhat... what if someone came in and wanted a hentai themed cake for a kid's birthday party. What if neo Nazis wanted a Hitler themed cake to celebrate the anniversary of the invasion of Poland? If the bakery refuses, can they now file a lawsuit and get some free money too?

Does that bakery now have to provide any kind of cake they are asked to make? What if someone wants them to bake a cake with dog $h!# in it, or razor blades? This decision sets a bad legal precedent.

Refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding is not violating anyone's rights... it's merely a bad business practice. It does not prevent gays from getting married. The gay couple could still have purchased a traditional wedding cake at the same bakery... they weren't refused service outright.

Yea, the baker is a douche... but in a free society policing is limited and you are legally allowed to be a douchebag in the name of protecting the freedoms of the majority who aren't douchebags.

Unfortunately, the country got a little bit more un-free (again) because of this situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:28 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,301,683 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
You mean "separate but equal"? It wasn't good enough that gay people could marry--they had to have their own version of marriage involving 2 people of the same gender. That variation did not exist before.

Do you mean in the United States, in the land occupied by the United States, or the world? Becasue in the latter two you are incorrect.

Other things have changed in the US such as the form of government, who can vote, who can own property.


You sound very ingenous saying that homosexuals could marry before just not those of the same gender so they were not discriminated against. As long as they lived a lie they were ok with you. You have the identical rights to marry the same gender as they do so it is not separate but equal it is indentical. Your arguments become less and less religious belief based and more and more anti homosexual based.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:31 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,301,683 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
I'm not against gay marriage but this decision rubs me wrong and seems to be an affront to the freedoms of the business/baker. That baker/bakery was prohibited from NOT doing something... usually people are penalized for doing something wrong.

Turn it around somewhat... what if someone came in and wanted a hentai themed cake for a kid's birthday party. What if neo Nazis wanted a Hitler themed cake to celebrate the anniversary of the invasion of Poland? Can they now file a lawsuit and get some free money too?

Does that bakery now have to provide any kind of cake they are asked to make? What if someone wants them to bake a cake with dog $h!# in it, or razor blades? This decision sets a bad legal precedent.

Refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding is not violating anyone's rights... it's merely a bad business practice. It does not prevent gays from getting married.

Yea, the baker is a douche... but in a free society policing is limited and you are legally allowed to be a douchebag in the name of protecting the freedoms of the majority who aren't douchebags.

Unfortunately, the country got a little bit more un-free (again) because of this situation.

Where is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of not putting dog **** in a cake, nor would it not be illegal due to health regulations. The rest of your questions have been anwered many times, they do not apply. Try not filing taxes when you owe money and use that arguement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:35 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,136,666 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Do you mean in the United States, in the land occupied by the United States, or the world? Becasue in the latter two you are incorrect.

Other things have changed in the US such as the form of government, who can vote, who can own property.


You sound very ingenous saying that homosexuals could marry before just not those of the same gender so they were not discriminated against. As long as they lived a lie they were ok with you. You have the identical rights to marry the same gender as they do so it is not separate but equal it is indentical. Your arguments become less and less religious belief based and more and more anti homosexual based.
Never in the history of our country has anyone been guaranteed the right to marry for love. Why now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:35 AM
 
10,077 posts, read 5,708,216 times
Reputation: 2892
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
I agree 100% that respect goes a long way.

But as a business owner, you are legally not allowed to discriminate, regardless of your personal beliefs.

If the baker offers wedding cakes, they must offer wedding cakes to white people, black people, brown people, purple people, straight people, gay people, old people, and young people.
Such statements like this simplify a complicated matter, and it's this brick wall resistance and stubborn refusal to look at the moral angle that is so frustrating. Funny thing is the pro-gay crowd has no problems making exceptions of their own like "well you can discriminate if it involves writing something on the cake that I find wrong. That goes against my beliefs!" From a moral standpoint, I see no difference with the owners not wanting to create a cake that supports something against their beliefs.

With the banner of discrimination, gays are just determined to force everyone to bow to their will clogging up the courts and claiming their rights are violated when they can easily get the same products elsewhere. Here's a case where the judge agrees with me:

Quote:

Ishmael was not convinced that preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constituted a “compelling government interest.†This was, in part, because GLSO was able to get shirts printed elsewhere, thus their rights were not infringed. Alliance Defending Freedom, which defended HOO, lauded the decision, with Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell adding, “No sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way.â€


Court Says 'Religious Freedom' Gives T-Shirt Company The Right To Discriminate Against LGBT Group | ThinkProgress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:51 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,301,683 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Such statements like this simplify a complicated matter, and it's this brick wall resistance and stubborn refusal to look at the moral angle that is so frustrating. Funny thing is the pro-gay crowd has no problems making exceptions of their own like "well you can discriminate if it involves writing something on the cake that I find wrong. That goes against my beliefs!" From a moral standpoint, I see no difference with the owners not wanting to create a cake that supports something against their beliefs.

With the banner of discrimination, gays are just determined to force everyone to bow to their will clogging up the courts and claiming their rights are violated when they can easily get the same products elsewhere. Here's a case where the judge agrees with me:




Court Says 'Religious Freedom' Gives T-Shirt Company The Right To Discriminate Against LGBT Group | ThinkProgress

It is not that the gays are making moral exceptions for KKK etc stuff, it is simply that the law does not prohibit discrimination based on membership of a group. Additionally if a baker bakes cakes that have anti gay sayings they have to be willing to sell those cakes to blacks as well as whites and in many states to gay as well as to straights. If a gay had gone to the same baker and requested an anti Christian messge on the cake the bake could have refused without breaking any rules or laws. That has been explained to you serveral times. You keep repeating the same wrong info over and over. You sure like to twist what has happened and why to fit some sort of narritive that shows that Christians who form the majority that makes the laws are being pushed aroung be a small minority that does not make the laws.

In regards to the t-shirt company and the baker, that is why there are appeal courts and supereme courts, either case could be overturned.

The moral angle should be discrimation against a legal marrige is wrong, that is my moral stance and why is it not equal to yours? You have still to answer the other questions about whose morality should count with child care etc. If obeying the law is based on the person's morality why have laws? Simple question for you to answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:51 AM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,088 posts, read 29,139,624 times
Reputation: 7812
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Such statements like this simplify a complicated matter, and it's this brick wall resistance and stubborn refusal to look at the moral angle that is so frustrating. Funny thing is the pro-gay crowd has no problems making exceptions of their own like "well you can discriminate if it involves writing something on the cake that I find wrong. That goes against my beliefs!" From a moral standpoint, I see no difference with the owners not wanting to create a cake that supports something against their beliefs.

With the banner of discrimination, gays are just determined to force everyone to bow to their will clogging up the courts and claiming their rights are violated when they can easily get the same products elsewhere. Here's a case where the judge agrees with me:




Court Says 'Religious Freedom' Gives T-Shirt Company The Right To Discriminate Against LGBT Group | ThinkProgress

Still different from baking a cake for the wedding. The judge ruled the shirt company did not have to print the logo. Had the organization just want generic type shirts PRINTED with out LGBT reference, the shirt company would have to print them...
Exactly what we have been saying all a long. If the cake was to have LGBT inscription, the baker could refuse the inscription, but NOT the actual baking of a cake without inscription or figures..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: USA
18,461 posts, read 9,106,258 times
Reputation: 8495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Now you have the right to impose YOUR religious morality on others.
I don't have a religion-based morality to impose. As you know, I am not a religious person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,761,037 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Where is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of not putting dog **** in a cake, nor would it not be illegal due to health regulations. The rest of your questions have been anwered many times, they do not apply. Try not filing taxes when you owe money and use that arguement.
Taxes are an effect, not a cause. If you don't get a job, you don't have to file taxes.

As for the cake's ingredients, what if I wanted something weird, gross, and/or hard to find that wasn't a health hazard? What if someone specifically asked for a nasty tasting cake (I don't know, say Vegemite flavored? ) that would reflect poorly on bakery's reputation? According to this decision, the bakery has to comply and make a product they don't want to make. It's like making Chevrolet produce motorcycles or forcing Taco Bell to sell hot dogs.

Dictating how a bakery should or should not make cakes is not the American way. If you don't like what they are selling, you are free to go elsewhere.

Again, the bakery was not stopping a gay couple from getting married. They simply didn't offer a cake with two brides on top and didn't want to make concessions. Bad business choice, yes... but should it have merited legal intervention? Hell no. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top