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.
Nope, my dog example was perfectly logical and legal. Animals are protected by law? Wow, who knew that all those farmers out there were breaking the law. A perfectly valid example with another lame copout response.
Fallacies by definition are not rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Christianity leads to people loving each other.
Unless they are gay. Did you forget what we were talking about here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Atheism leads to more anger, suicide and conflict which we are seeing the fruits of those atheist seeds starting to sprout today.
And still no example of atheists flying planes into buildings, or starting holy wars.
I love that Transponder sees it as forcing our values when it was the gay couple that came into his store and demanded that he compromise his values. They are the ones forcing their values onto us!
You mean the baker does not do wedding cakes at all?
Do you not understand the distinction, or do you always distort the truth?
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 one is forcing the baker to bake a cake. It is you who is dancing around the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
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.
So you keep asserting, yet the only increase in violence I keep seeing is mostly religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
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.
So not depression, atheism. No, I have it, Trump is in office, therefore it is HIS fault.
You mean the baker does not do wedding cakes at all?
Do you not understand the distinction, or do you always distort the truth?
He doesn't service gay wedding. Never has. Never had to be forced into a compromise until secularism decided to embrace immorality. Is that really so hard to understand?
He doesn't service gay wedding. Never has. Never had to be forced into a compromise until secularism decided to embrace immorality. Is that really so hard to understand?
No, I understand he decided to break the law when it came to the crunch.
By the way, someone being gay does not hurt you. But following the OT laws would. So you are in no position to talk about morality.
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.
The law from the Torah says man is not supposed to lie with man as he does woman. God destroyed a city because man was engaging in that behavior. A religious person following that law could look at baking a cake for a wedding between two men as something God wouldn't approve of, so they wouldn't want to do it for fear of being punished by God. It's really that simple. Once you decide to follow God, you don't get to choose which rules you're going to follow and which ones you aren't. It's one thing to "sin" when you don't know better. It's another to consciously do something you know is against the rules. As I said...God's law supersedes man's law. And if one reads the Bible, they'll realize many Americans laws actually come from the Bible. There are even very specific details about property rights, which I was shocked to see myself. So it's funny to me when people claim some things (like that cross in FL) are "against the Constitution" when the laws of this country got their template from the Bible. I encourage people to read the Old Testament. Its really interesting. And contrary to popular belief, all the OT laws and customs were not abandoned with the New Testament.
Anyway...I am not saying the baker was right or wrong. What I'm saying is, he didn't necessarily discriminate against the couple. You do not have a "right" to a cake. And there are plenty of other places they could have gone to get it. I can't tell you how many businesses have had employees be racist toward me. You know what I do when that happens? I don't patronize them anymore. Could I make a stink and file a lawsuit against them? Probably. But is it worth it? No. I'll just happily spend my money elsewhere.
The law from the Torah says man is not supposed to lie with man as he does woman. God destroyed a city because man was engaging in that behavior. A religious person following that law could look at baking a cake for a wedding between two men as something God wouldn't approve of, so they wouldn't want to do it for fear of being punished by God. It's really that simple.
It really is that simple if you ignore the laws of your own land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
Once you decide to follow God, you don't get to choose which rules you're going to follow and which ones you aren't.
Except Christians do, every day. You do not follow the laws of the OT, unless you decide to use the OT to be a bigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
As I said...God's law supersedes man's law.
Not in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
And if one reads the Bible, they'll realize many Americans laws actually come from the Bible.
If one reads the Bible, you will find the opposite.
......
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.
Such muddy thinking on all sides of the question. It is a question because bigots have been accustomed to discriminate and had to try to find a way to do it with impunity. SCOTUS decided that the board which made the original judgement was prejudiced against such bigotry and might not have been deciding on the merits of the case. In othewr words, they ducked the issue. The question in this case is whether the baker was really objecting to particular custom work which should always be his right regardless of rationale, or whether he refused simply because the couple was gay, which is illegal. Indications were that the latter was the actual case and the baker later siezed on the "custom" or artistic work defense in an effort to find a legitimate cover for his bigotry. Making the basic cake without custom decorations would have fulfilled the legal requirements. The job was refused without discussion of those decorations.
The Biblical laws are not set up for believers to break the laws of the land. Because ideally, the laws of the land are supposed to be in sync with the Biblical laws (if the Israelites carried out their duties correctly ). As I said, you do not have a "right" to cake. I am not a lawyer..but I believe if you haven't been deprived of your 5th amendment rights, you do not have a case. I don't believe the couple could prove they were deprived of those rights even if the Supreme Court had decided the merits. The couple would have to prove harm...which, based on what I know of the case, I think would be difficult to prove. People not understanding our court system leads to them thinking all sorts of things are illegal when they aren't. This case, to me, actually validates that the Constitution is in line with the Biblical law.
The Biblical laws are not set up for believers to break the laws of the land. Because ideally, the laws of the land are supposed to be in sync with the Biblical laws (if the Israelites carried out their duties correctly ). As I said, you do not have a "right" to cake. I am not a lawyer..but I believe if you haven't been deprived of your 5th amendment rights, you do not have a case. I don't believe the couple could prove they were deprived of those rights even if the Supreme Court had decided the merits. The couple would have to prove harm...which, based on what I know of the case, I think would be difficult to prove. People not understanding our court system leads to them thinking all sorts of things are illegal when they aren't. This case, to me, actually validates that the Constitution is in line with the Biblical law.
Is slavery legal in the US? If not, the US does not follow the OT laws.
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.
). As I said, you do not have a "right" to cake. I am not a lawyer..but I believe if you haven't been deprived of your 5th amendment rights, you do not have a case. I don't believe the couple could prove they were deprived of those rights even if the Supreme Court had decided the merits. The couple would have to prove harm...which, based on what I know of the case, I think would be difficult to prove. People not understanding our court system leads to them thinking all sorts of things are illegal when they aren't. This case, to me, actually validates that the Constitution is in line with the Biblical law.