Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Islamic, believers)
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.
Well, you asked questions and I answered them. To me, debating is trying to force you to see my side. If I can help somebody better understand my viewpoint, then I'll happily explain. I don't see that as trying to force you to accept my view...just show you how I came to my conclusions.
Well, you asked questions and I answered them. To me, debating is trying to force you to see my side. If I can help somebody better understand my viewpoint, then I'll happily explain. I don't see that as trying to force you to accept my view...just show you how I came to my conclusions.
Yes, but do try to keep an eye on the Topic. It is not "Apologetics for Islam". Mods are very accommodating about derails if the discussion is of value, but these are not "Chat about anything" threads.
I'm not trying to derail the thread. It all ties together. I can't explain my view on the Bible without sometimes referencing the Quran because those scriptures are part of my validation process. The Quran is the reason I started reading the Bible more, and my family is basically Christian. The reason I'm not in the Islam forum is because I'm not familiar with that religion and would be speaking out of ignorance. But I will try to be more aware because I know off-topic convos get shut down.
That's quite revealing. If you have Faith, you can excuse pretty much anything, or at least sideline a few things and keep Faith.
But once you lose that and stop making excuses, then the deconvert sees what he or she was doing. There is no way they seem to be able to do this while in Faith.
THAT would depend entirely on the object of their faith. For those unfortunate enough to place their faith in the Bible, enlightenment must destroy it, but some of us have faith in the Spirit taught by Christ.
Which should bring us back to how distressed such of us are to see bigotry upheld even in such an indirect way as this decision by SCOTUS.
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.
And the Colorado government violated his Constitutional rights of religious freedom by creating a broad unconstitutional law that spits in the face of religious freedom. My dog example stands and I will keep bringing it right front of you until someone can give me a good argument why business owners SHOULD be forced to violate their morals.
BTW, getting involving in gay marriage does hurt people. It establishes a barrier between you and God when you embrace sin and opens your mind to demonic influence. No wonder people on your side are so angry and without compassion even when these Christian business owners get threatened or lose everything.
And the Colorado government violated his Constitutional rights of religious freedom by creating a broad unconstitutional law that spits in the face of religious freedom. My dog example stands and I will keep bringing it right front of you until someone can give me a good argument why business owners SHOULD be forced to violate their morals.
If you are proposing to keep on with this nonsense, then, if it was legal to sell dogs for food, anyone who sold dogs for food would have to sell dogs for food. If he was selling dogs as pets he would sell dogs as pets and not as food, just as a fishmonger sells fish for eating and an aquarium shop sells them for looking at. I said you example was nonsense, so i suggest you drop it.
Quote:
BTW, getting involving in gay marriage does hurt people. It establishes a barrier between you and God when you embrace sin and opens your mind to demonic influence. No wonder people on your side are so angry and without compassion even when these Christian business owners get threatened or lose everything.
This is more nonsense. Your case rests entirely on unsubstantiated faith -claims. It is those that causes the trouble when they make a business owner take a moral stance on marriage that is really none of his business. And when the law steps in he screams persecution.
And the Colorado government violated his Constitutional rights of religious freedom by creating a broad unconstitutional law that spits in the face of religious freedom. My dog example stands and I will keep bringing it right front of you until someone can give me a good argument why business owners SHOULD be forced to violate their morals.
BTW, getting involving in gay marriage does hurt people. It establishes a barrier between you and God when you embrace sin and opens your mind to demonic influence. No wonder people on your side are so angry and without compassion even when these Christian business owners get threatened or lose everything.
They lost. Its done.
It was only a matter of time before they pushed gay rights to a wedge issue. They went too far.
And the Colorado government violated his Constitutional rights of religious freedom by creating a broad unconstitutional law that spits in the face of religious freedom. My dog example stands and I will keep bringing it right front of you until someone can give me a good argument why business owners SHOULD be forced to violate their morals.
BTW, getting involving in gay marriage does hurt people. It establishes a barrier between you and God when you embrace sin and opens your mind to demonic influence. No wonder people on your side are so angry and without compassion even when these Christian business owners get threatened or lose everything.
They lost. Its done.
It was only a matter of time before they pushed gay rights to a wedge issue. They went too far.
1. It's not done.
2. The court decided this case in a very narrow decision.
3. It's always been a wedge issue to the narrow minded bigots and the right's religious groups.
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.
I don't get it at all. It's not like they are refusing to decorate a cake with two men humping on it. They aren't refusing the art at all, they are refusing the person.
If an artist refused to draw porn for someone, yes, that is understandable. If the artist refused to draw for someone because they were black, or gay, then that isn't ok.
They didn't ask for porn decorations on the cake and they didn't refuse it because of the cake decorations but rather they refused it based on who the client was. There is no argument there to use.
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.
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.