Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (recall, opinion)
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.
A man should not be forced to do something his religion prevents him from doing.
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers with service dogs, because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers who are Jews because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol because her religion "prevents her from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim real estate developer who refuses to sell homes in a housing development to anyone except Muslims because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-06-2018 at 10:51 PM..
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers with service dogs, because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers who are Jews because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol because her religion "prevents her from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim real estate developer who refuses to sell homes in a housing development to anyone except Muslims because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
What about them? They have that right. If their employer lets them get away with it, so be it. Otherwise, they find a new job.
In the case of the baker, he owned his own bakery and was his own boss. Don’t like it? Don’t go there.
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.
How does the Civil rights Act of 1965 title IV play into this?...
What about them? They have that right. If their employer lets them get away with it, so be it. Otherwise, they find a new job.
In the case of the baker, he owned his own bakery and was his own boss. Don’t like it? Don’t go there.
They don't have a right if "the owner lets them get away with it". If they do so and there is a complaint, the owner gets the book thrown at him for letting his employee buck the law.
As to the flight attendant, as in other cases, a compromise might be offered (as there to Kim Davis and was not so much giving them a right, but allowing them Legally to 'get away with it'. And that was tempering justice with mercy and they should have been grateful.
I agree that owning your own business is different, but you are your own boss and letting yourself 'get away with it' puts you in the same boat. You are responsible for seeing that the service you offers to customers complies with the law. Of course the gay cake issue was a contentious one, but the argument they tried to use - that free artistic expression was not communication, like language or writing was - was rejected.
So I gather that some states simply disregard the law, as some do about not teaching creationism in the science class and defy the state to do something about it.
That's doesn't make it legal and not really democratic either. Despite losing case after case: Dover, the religious stickers on police -cars, religious texts in courtrooms, Kim Davis, the tax -drivers who wouldn't take passengers with booze and, it seems, the gay cake, they keep on and on trying to chip away at the law to insert religious privilege.
An incredibly wrong-headed opinion, in my own opinion. And one that should be, and will be, challenged. The discriminated-against couple said it best and I paraphrase: No one should have to endure the shame and embarrassment of hearing the words, "We don't serve your kind here."
No surprise that you would be against a ruling that favors a Christian. I don't recall you protesting when the gay coffee shop owner kicked out Christians. You can't have it both ways. If you are against this ruling then the coffee shop owner had no right to refuse service. Period. NO EXCEPTIONS.
And what exactly is wrong with social justice? I would say that Jesus and Buddha were both social justice warriors.
Social justice to support a sinful lifestyle is not justice or progress. No business owner should have to be forced to engage on any level involving an immoral ceremony.
I agree that owning your own business is different, but you are your own boss and letting yourself 'get away with it' puts you in the same boat. You are responsible for seeing that the service you offers to customers complies with the law. Of course the gay cake issue was a contentious one, but the argument they tried to use - that free artistic expression was not communication, like language or writing was - was rejected.
IF that argument is rejected then the Colorado government is blatantly being inconsistent and hostile against Christians as they ruled in favor for a gay baker because that baker did not like the language that was requested on the cake order. You can't have it both ways. Hey it's just a cake, right?
Quote:
As the court noted, Phillips’ case lines up nicely with another contemporaneous case that had been before the Civil Rights Commission in which a customer named William Jack had, citing his religion, tried to hire three bakeries to make him a cake with a message denigrating gay persons and gay marriage. In each case, the bakeries had declined to do so, believing the message to be offensive and distasteful. The commission upheld the right of the three bakeries in refusing to bake a cake they found abhorrent, even though the customer complained it was an infringement on his religious beliefs.
So I gather that some states simply disregard the law, as some do about not teaching creationism in the science class and defy the state to do something about it.
That's doesn't make it legal and not really democratic either. Despite losing case after case: Dover, the religious stickers on police -cars, religious texts in courtrooms, Kim Davis, the tax -drivers who wouldn't take passengers with booze and, it seems, the gay cake, they keep on and on trying to chip away at the law to insert religious privilege.
No, the reality is that it is atheists and secularists who are using the law as a weapon to chip away at religious freedoms that have existed all along. The cake business owner was making cakes and having no problems well before society decided to classify an immoral lifestyle as a social class of people and legalize an immoral union. I'm quite sure that the same people blasting the baker who not like it if they were forced to service a wedding involving a father marrying his grown daughter.
No, the reality is that it is atheists and secularists who are using the law as a weapon to chip away at religious freedoms that have existed all along. The cake business owner was making cakes and having no problems well before society decided to classify an immoral lifestyle as a social class of people and legalize an immoral union. I'm quite sure that the same people blasting the baker who not like it if they were forced to service a wedding involving a father marrying his grown daughter.
Wrong as usual. You do not have the right to be bigoted. You still have freedom of religion.
It is the religious who are trying to chip away at the rights of others.
No surprise that you would be against a ruling that favors a Christian. I don't recall you protesting when the gay coffee shop owner kicked out Christians. You can't have it both ways. If you are against this ruling then the coffee shop owner had no right to refuse service. Period. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Please show where I defended the coffee shop owner.
Yet another baseless claim from a notorious spouter of same.
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.
