Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (believing, mercy)
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.
If people keep trying to inject their political remarks into the Religion and Spirituality forums, posts will be deleted, infractions will be issued, threads will be closed (or deleted). This is NOT the Politics forum.
It might be limited, but the takeaway by the general population is going to be "I can deny service to anyone and use religion as my excuse." I think we might have many emboldened people use that excuse now. And it be years before it is litigated again at the SCOTUS.
A child being denied medical help because of religious beliefs is totally different from a baker not wanting to support a gay wedding by not baking a cake for it...No one’s life is in danger...It is the Jewish belief that all life is sacred and it is commanded to put life above the law, for example, if someone needs medical attention on Shabbat it is acceptable to drive on the Sabbath and take that person to the hospital, no Halacha has been broken...IOW, preserving life takes precedence...
Yes but we are talking about secular law here, and i agree that nobody's life was in danger. This was about community rights. You will know as well as i do that shouting racist abuse at people is not (immediately) threatening to life either, but secular law has ruled against it and if you offend, the law will take action.
I don't deny that these sorts of cases - refusing to issue same -sex marriage licenses, refusing to rent hotel rooms to same -sex couples - are not the same as shouting racist (or geneder) abuse, which is why we get test cases. The Kim Davis case came down solidly on supporting the rights of same -sex couples. I would even agree that on the gay cake case (or cases - there have been others) is rather On the wire, deciding whose rights should be upheld. But in the end, Secular, not religious (that has been decided in law, too) law must prevail. I haven't seen the latest updates -apart from a Southern state defying the law, as they often do, on a religious matter trumping a federal law. But if the law decides the baker is in the wrong, that's the law, as if they had decided to support the baker in this case, I would accept that ruling and would tell the gay couple "I understand and sympathise with your position, but that's the Law". If they don't like it, they can try to change it, but if they break it, they can expect to be fined and jailed, and in my view, they have it coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
SJ does not respect differences of opinion, such as was the case when it tried, and failed, to trample on the rights of the religious baker.
It then becomes Social Injustice.
SCOTUS corrected the overreach, Thank God.
PS: Don't recall Jesus baking wedding cakes for same sex marriages.
I'm not clear on this, but I believe there is a federal ruling on this matter, and some states are simply defying it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-06-2018 at 08:23 AM..
There is a discussion of obeying one's conscience. If we believe that it is sinful for us to engage in said activity, we should not do it. In those contexts, there was a question about eating meat sacrificed to idols. The conclusion was that if you believe that God would not have you do it, then don't do it. We can apply the same thing to drinking, or smoking, or anything not explicitly enumerated in Scripture. Another example is to participate in a wedding event which one considers to be immoral. Another may be to bake a cake for a kkk celebration with racial slurs on it--especially if said baker was a black man and was especially sensitive to the issues.
You may disagree, and that's fine. That's your opinion. Many Christians may disagree -- and if they do, that's fine---that's their opinion. But to suggest that this man be forced to do something which he believes God forbids him from doing is wrong.
If you run a public business, you serve the public. If there are "slices" of the public that you don't want to serve, then don't run a public business.
You can say - "sorry, no, you'll have to add your own "two males" cake topper" or "sorry, no I won't decorate it with a swastika" but the end of the sentence has to be "but I will make you a cake and you can do whatever you want with it."
There is a HUGE difference between saying "no, I don't want to make a penis-shaped cake but I will make you a standard cake" and "no, I don't serve your kind, go away." That is the heart of the argument.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
Moderator for: Oregon (and subforums), Auto Racing.
When you signed up for an account, you agreed to abide by the site's TOS and rules. You really should look through them.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
City-Data FAQ: //www.city-data.com/forum/faq/
A business is known by its ways. If it does horrible things, it will be known, and they will likely go out of business. That leaves the control of these matters with the people and the public - as it should be - rather than bringing in the stupid government to feebly try to solve it.
So some of you really trust government more than your community to solve matters?
A business is known by its ways. If it does horrible things, it will be known, and they will likely go out of business. That leaves the control of these matters with the people and the public - as it should be - rather than bringing in the stupid government to feebly try to solve it.
So some of you really trust government more than your community to solve matters?
Whites only, no colors seemed to last a long time until the government stepped in. Discrimination against minorities runs pretty good until the government stepped in. The government does not need to step in to stop discrimination as long as you are not part of the groups being discriminated against. Segregation was not brought down because whites no longer supported ir, it was brought down by government order. Look at the photo of the little girl needing to be escorted into a school by the police while the good citizens were threatening her and she looks about 5 or 6.
Think about the daily lives of those who were discriminated against before and after government actions before you decide if it was wrong to stop that discrimination. As I said above if you don't face that discrimination how do you know how harmful it is and how businesses are not necessarily the ones to intervene, ad long as their customers approve of discrimination it would continue.
This recent ruling opens up a huge can of worms whereby any vendor can shun those they do not prefer based upon gender, race, ethnicity, lifestyle and attitude, etc...just by saying, "My religion proscribes me from dealing with such persons". And use this case to back up their bias.
OTOH...it is great to watch those with bias against religion and the religious get all bollixed up!
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.
