Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Israel, punished)
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.
Why on earth does anyone want to discriminate against anyone else who has not harmed or hurt them in any way? Jesus would ask why would you do so even in the latter case. It is just a horrible human trait to want to do so to anyone for any reason. Pretending you are doing it for God is the supreme blasphemy, IMO. You are NOT God and you are NOT to usurp God's role, period.
You know as well as I do that animals ARE protected by law, but outside of India perhaps, no Law protects animals from being farmed for food. You can argue the morality of that, but that's the law and you know it as well as i do.
You keep dancing around the point. It is legal to eat dogs in the US. So yes or no, do you think it is right to force pet shop owners to sell pets to customer who want to eat them? Yes or no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It suits you of course to blame a perceived increase in "anger, suicide and conflict" (arguable) on the increase in irreligion. Even if the Good Old days, everything was blamed on taking prayer out of schol, and before that on not have enough religion. You people won't stop blaming anyone and anybody but Christianity and its' believers for social problem until you have a theocracy. And then you won't have to explain or even acknowledge that there Are any problems.
I only call it as a I see it. And it appears a bit too coincidental that at the same time more people are becoming non-religious, we are seeing a drastic rise in suicide and violence. Even more celebrities are taking their own lives and you would think they would be the ones who should be the most happy in this life.
You keep dancing around the point. It is legal to eat dogs in the US. So yes or no, do you think it is right to force pet shop owners to sell pets to customer who want to eat them? Yes or no.
No, you keep trying dance away from the point. what animals you are allowed to eat or sell to someone who wants to eat them is a matter of Law. The precedents are there if you want to pay a lawyer to explain them to you. Asking me or any other laybod is as irrelevant as asking you or me whether a cake out be be decorated for a gay wedding or not. The Law will rule on it and asking me or you whether it is ok to refuse it or not is an interesting discussion, but irrelevant as the legal ruling is what decides. Do you think I can't understand why a Christian who has been fed the doctrine that same sex marriage is against his religion will rather defy the law rather than defy what he thinks of as God's laws.
Can you understand that I say that's tough, but if the law says that his business cannot legally pick and choose who to serve and whom not to serve (admittedly on this business of decorating rather than baking), then that is what he must do or face the consequences of secular law and no excuse in religion.
Just as if they ruled the other way, the gay couple would indeed have no complaint in law.
Quote:
I only call it as a I see it. And it appears a bit too coincidental that at the same time more people are becoming non-religious, we are seeing a drastic rise in suicide and violence. Even more celebrities are taking their own lives and you would think they would be the ones who should be the most happy in this life.
Never having been a celebrity or paid more money than I know what to do with, I can't speak of the pressures the rich and famous have to deal with, the temptations that are put in their way or what a shock to the psyche it is to find that you don't need to work for what you want but can just have it. But I have heard that the pressures of celebrity are enough to account for the collapses that some of them have, and increased secularism is no more to do with it than any other social ills you are pointing to and claiming that they are getting worse.
I run a business, and I serve religious people even though I don't believe in freedom of religion. I don't believe you should have the right to make up fake crap you can't prove and have a law that says you are free to do it and be free from tax to boot, but yet I would still bake your cake and put Jesus loves me on it for you.
Should I have the right to not serve Christians? Mormons? Jews? Jehovahs Witnesses? Muslims? etc.....(there are over 4000 so I won't be listing them all) Or maybe just the ones I find most offensive? So maybe only restrict Muslims, Jews, and Christians because they kill the most people? I mean you are really gross and mean. It's really offensive to my morality.
Let me ask the religious here a question. Can a gay person bake your cake? Or will you start wanting only religious bakers for your cakes? How will you know?
I'm sure plenty of gays have handled all your food at one point or another looking at the food chain, and you eat it.
Why on earth does anyone want to discriminate against anyone else who has not harmed or hurt them in any way? Jesus would ask why would you do so even in the latter case. It is just a horrible human trait to want to do so to anyone for any reason. Pretending you are doing it for God is the supreme blasphemy, IMO. You are NOT God and you are NOT to usurp God's role, period.
Before I really started reading the scriptures, I would have agreed with you. But after gaining more understanding of the scriptures, I can see the baker's side.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in part because the men in Sodom were sleeping with other men. Lot warned them about engaging in this behavior. Abraham even pleaded with God to save Sodom if there were at least 10 righteous people in the city (Genesis 18:32). But the people were not righteous, and God destroyed the cities.
Leviticus 18:22 says that it is unlawful for a man to have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman. Leviticus 26:18 puts in simple terms that God will punish those who do not listen to his laws. The entire chapter (Leviticus 26) lays out what will happen to those who obey and those who disobey. Now, these laws and decrees were given to the Israelites, but being that the Israelites were supposed to be the model for the rest of society, anyone who claimed to follow God would be bound by these laws too. So if you look at the situation in terms of scripture, the baker was within his right to refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds. It is not discrimination, for it is against his religion to disobey God's laws...and the Bible is clear on what those laws are.
With that being said, I do believe many, many Christians (probably more of them than not) use their religion to justify hateful behavior. And those who are coming from a hateful place will have to answer for that. But those who are sincerely trying to live according to the Word aren't doing anything wrong. They are not going to follow man's law if it breaks God's law. You do not submit to man over God. God has dominion over everything.
Before I really started reading the scriptures, I would have agreed with you. But after gaining more understanding of the scriptures, I can see the baker's side.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in part because the men in Sodom were sleeping with other men. Lot warned them about engaging in this behavior. Abraham even pleaded with God to save Sodom if there were at least 10 righteous people in the city (Genesis 18:32). But the people were not righteous, and God destroyed the cities.
Leviticus 18:22 says that it is unlawful for a man to have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman. Leviticus 26:18 puts in simple terms that God will punish those who do not listen to his laws. The entire chapter (Leviticus 26) lays out what will happen to those who obey and those who disobey. Now, these laws and decrees were given to the Israelites, but being that the Israelites were supposed to be the model for the rest of society, anyone who claimed to follow God would be bound by these laws too. So if you look at the situation in terms of scripture, the baker was within his right to refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds. It is not discrimination, for it is against his religion to disobey God's laws...and the Bible is clear on what those laws are.
With that being said, I do believe many, many Christians (probably more of them than not) use their religion to justify hateful behavior. And those who are coming from a hateful place will have to answer for that. But those who are sincerely trying to live according to the Word aren't doing anything wrong. They are not going to follow man's law if it breaks God's law. You do not submit to man over God. God has dominion over everything.
That would be okay if you lived in a place that ran on biblical law, but you don’t. And if you lived in a country which operated under shariah law, you could stone people for violating it, maybe chop off a hand that was caught stealing from you or others. But you don’t. You live in a secular society, a place where thousands of religious sects coexist under a set of rules that apply to all equally (yes, maybe not “all, equally,” but we try).
As a business owner, that owner uses tax-payer funded roads, courts, mail and delivery systems, Gov’t programs, financial incentives, employees with tax-payer subsidized educations and possibly food stamps or other benefits (if your pay is low), and so is beholden to his/her community for the money they put up, without which the business could not afford to operate.
So this argument is just one of thousands that could be espoused; all of them wrong.
And baking a cake for a gay couple does not mean that you personally agree with or support a lifestyle or sin. God knows what’s in your heart, right? I don’t see why this is even a question.
Before I really started reading the scriptures, I would have agreed with you. But after gaining more understanding of the scriptures, I can see the baker's side
Where does it say not to bake a cake? At the most you, your self, would be required not to do whatever was proscribed. It says nothing about what others do.
I run a business, and I serve religious people even though I don't believe in freedom of religion. I don't believe you should have the right to make up fake crap you can't prove and have a law that says you are free to do it and be free from tax to boot, but yet I would still bake your cake and put Jesus loves me on it for you.
Should I have the right to not serve Christians? Mormons? Jews? Jehovahs Witnesses? Muslims? etc.....(there are over 4000 so I won't be listing them all) Or maybe just the ones I find most offensive? So maybe only restrict Muslims, Jews, and Christians because they kill the most people? I mean you are really gross and mean. It's really offensive to my morality.
Let me ask the religious here a question. Can a gay person bake your cake? Or will you start wanting only religious bakers for your cakes? How will you know?
I'm sure plenty of gays have handled all your food at one point or another looking at the food chain, and you eat it.
You eat gay touched food. Yikes!
Jeff has posted a lot on this and argues that the baker is not actually anti gay, no more than Jeff is (he says - and cited a band he listens to with a gay member or some such) but while they will bake them a cake, decorating it with symbols of a same sex wedding is too much like (as Jeff puts it) 'participating in a gay ceremony' (or immoral, as he calls it). It is a tricky one about whose rights are being infringed. I absolutely get it, and I absolutely get that this might be like a commission for a mural or a cantata, and an artist or composer refusing a commission on a subject or theme they disapprove of.
I gather the ruling is that this is not like art, but a service, like printing, and anyone who refuses to print something they don't agree with is in violation of the law (unless what the subject is is not protected by law, like racist pamphlets). The ruling seems clear and the Colorado decision recognises that and this one off reversal (for what seems to me an irrelevant reason (1) doesn't change that.
It does seem like one of those cases (like Kim Davis) where a compromise could defuse the matter (though the bad feeling will probably remain, now) but a compromise does not confer a right in law.
(1) and i will be astonished if the ruling is not appealed and overturned and the lawyers will make a lot more money.
Before I really started reading the scriptures, I would have agreed with you. But after gaining more understanding of the scriptures, I can see the baker's side.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in part because the men in Sodom were sleeping with other men. Lot warned them about engaging in this behavior. Abraham even pleaded with God to save Sodom if there were at least 10 righteous people in the city (Genesis 18:32). But the people were not righteous, and God destroyed the cities.
Leviticus 18:22 says that it is unlawful for a man to have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman. Leviticus 26:18 puts in simple terms that God will punish those who do not listen to his laws. The entire chapter (Leviticus 26) lays out what will happen to those who obey and those who disobey. Now, these laws and decrees were given to the Israelites, but being that the Israelites were supposed to be the model for the rest of society, anyone who claimed to follow God would be bound by these laws too. So if you look at the situation in terms of scripture, the baker was within his right to refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds. It is not discrimination, for it is against his religion to disobey God's laws...and the Bible is clear on what those laws are.
With that being said, I do believe many, many Christians (probably more of them than not) use their religion to justify hateful behavior. And those who are coming from a hateful place will have to answer for that. But those who are sincerely trying to live according to the Word aren't doing anything wrong. They are not going to follow man's law if it breaks God's law. You do not submit to man over God. God has dominion over everything.
Very good. These kinds of cases really boil down to a national battle between a secular society or a religious one. While it is cast as a moral issue it is really a religious issue. Secular morality or religious doctrine? And the issue is tolerance or intolerance. Really. While I wouldn't have sex with a man for a large bet, I wouldn't dream of trying to deny anyone's rights on the basis of they do it and the religious Dogma (citing scripture) disapproves.
Mystic i know has no time for the OT. His "God" is a sorta -god, though I don't know whether he accepts, rejects or cafeteria -counter selects the NT (including Paul). But you won't get much change out of pushing Mystic into defending the OT. He won't.
No, but freedom of religion means we are free to follow any religion we like, or none at all. And if freedom of religion was scrapped, atheists in the US would have to follow the ruling religion. And so would you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The only bigotry going on here is bigotry against Christians.
Only against those Christians who want to break the law. Freedom of religion means YOU are free to pursue any religion YOU want to, or none at all. It does NOT mean you are free to be a bigot to someone else because of your religion. Religion does not trump the laws of the US, and if it did, you would not have freedom of religion.
It is you who wants to remove freedom of religion, or to redefine it to mean freedom to be a religious bigot. And either 1) you do not understand this is what you arguing for, 2) you do not want to understand this, or 3) you are pretending not to understand this.
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.
Never having been a celebrity or paid more money than I know what to do with, I can't speak of the pressures the rich and famous have to deal with, the temptations that are put in their way or what a shock to the psyche it is to find that you don't need to work for what you want but can just have it. But I have heard that the pressures of celebrity are enough to account for the collapses that some of them have, and increased secularism is no more to do with it than any other social ills you are pointing to and claiming that they are getting worse.
Jeff has posted a lot on this and argues that the baker is not actually anti gay, no more than Jeff is (he says - and cited a band he listens to with a gay member or some such) but while they will bake them a cake, decorating it with symbols of a same sex wedding is too much like (as Jeff puts it) 'participating in a gay ceremony' (or immoral, as he calls it). It is a tricky one about whose rights are being infringed. I absolutely get it, and I absolutely get that this might be like a commission for a mural or a cantata, and an artist or composer refusing a commission on a subject or theme they disapprove of.