Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Buddhists, Mormon)
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.
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.
When you say this it creates a barrier between reality and fantasy for me. Yes, and it does make me wonder just what will society accept as an excuse to discriminate. Are we going with demonic influence for 500 judges?
I can't win against made up crap, it's a bit fuzzy on the fair meter. I can't really say, "show me the demon" as proof so um, yeah,
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.
Hmm... Aspy much?
If you read the entire post it’s obvious I understand why it is a “legal” question. I’ve checked for mud in my head, but there was none.
I suppose I could be more serious with such a touchy subject, but the whole idea of “religious freedom” (turned on its head) is just ridiculous.
Another example of that muddy thinking I mentioned. There is nothing in OT law that requires slavery to be sanctioned, it just sanctions what was in place.
As would the US if slavery was legal. Your point makes no sense to me.
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 your viewpoint is basically you feeling certain parts of the OT have been altered; or that people who study history correcting invented history is because that person is not secure in their point of view (but only where religion is concerned).
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.
So Colorado said the religious person can NOT follow that religion? No. So no they did not violate the constitution, they upheld it. It is you who is defining religious freedom to be a bigot.
And you can keep on bringing up the dog example, it still does has nothing to do with why you think why business owners SHOULD be forced to violate the US constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
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.
I have compassion for the two people who want to celebrate their love for each other, but if you want to have compassion for criminals, go ahead.
But well done for admitting what a despicable, immoral monster your god must be for making them gay in the first place. What sort of a despicable trick is that for a loving god?
Yes but your viewpoint is basically you feeling certain parts of the OT have been altered; or that people who study history correcting invented history is because that person is not secure in their point of view (but only where religion is concerned).
Not true. I think all the monotheistic religions are branches of the same tree. I have copies of the Tanakh, Bible and Quran and compare notes. If there are consistencies between them, I generally accept those facts as true since they check out in all books. Although admittedly I'm not as familiar with the Tanakh as the others. I also know the Bible has been corrupted. So if I find something in it that doesn't match with what I know to be God's laws and regulations, that "something" is fair game for being false. I also take into account what know of world history. If history is consistent with the scriptures, it further validates whatever I've discerned (through study) to be true.
Quite a bit goes into my studying to ensure I am understanding and not just regurgitating what I was taught growing up. I find that of all the books, the Quran is the most consistent. I do quite a bit of fact-checking. As I said...I'm open to correction. I'm not perfect. But I will only accept corrections that are backed up with verse/fact and consistent with the themes of the books. "So and so scholar determined X was wrong" isn't enough to override what I've gathered from my own careful readings.
Not true. I think all the monotheistic religions are branches of the same tree. I have copies of the Tanakh, Bible and Quran and compare notes. If there are consistencies between them, I generally accept those facts as true since they check out in all books. Although admittedly I'm not as familiar with the Tanakh as the others. I also know the Bible has been corrupted. So if I find something in it that doesn't match with what I know to be God's laws and regulations, that "something" is fair game for being false. I also take into account what know of world history. If history is consistent with the scriptures, it further validates whatever I've discerned (through study) to be true.
Quite a bit goes into my studying to ensure I am understanding and not just regurgitating what I was taught growing up. I find that of all the books, the Quran is the most consistent. I do quite a bit of fact-checking. As I said...I'm open to correction. I'm not perfect. But I will only accept corrections that are backed up with verse/fact and consistent with the themes of the books. "So and so scholar determined X was wrong" isn't enough to override what I've gathered from my own careful readings.
One correction: What you've HEARD is God's laws, not what you KNOW. You have no way of KNOWING anything. It's all hearsay. You have faith in certain things you've read or heard and not in others. Therefore, it's all about you.
You can't do any fact-checking. You can simply match up what people have believed over time and compare that. It's a fact that there are over 4000 religious beliefs, but there is no fact in what they believe.
It's impossible to discuss laws without fact. You are discussing emotion, and what you feel which is why this is moot.
The gay men are a fact, but the reasoning behind the bakers injured moral is not.
The baker wants a safe space in the marketplace among all people for their feelings. The gay men just want a cake. I wonder just how far the law will go based on hearsay? How far will freedom of religion go regarding law? Since there is no proof of any God's existence and only stories of believers, excuses based on it could be endless.
In some countries, it goes as far as an excuse to kill. That keeps those of us who disagree with basing any law on belief systems concerned. I am sure you can understand this.
In Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, homosexuality is still punishable by death, under sharia law. The same applies in parts of Somalia and northern Nigeria. In two other countries – Syria and Iraq – the death penalty is carried out by non-state actors, including Islamic State.https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...untries-report
Is slavery legal in the US? If not, the US does not follow the OT laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Another example of that muddy thinking I mentioned. There is nothing in OT law that requires slavery to be sanctioned, it just sanctions what was in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
As would the US if slavery was legal. Your point makes no sense to me.
Then let's review your thinking. Does the fact that OT law sanctions slavery mean that slavery is required? No, it des not, it only establishes rules for the operation of the institution when it is in place. THEREFORE there is no violation of OT law if the institution is NOT in place. Are you following? Your post has no merit in reason.
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!
Agreed. Tolerance tends to be a one way street with most people, the left included.
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.
I know this may come as a surprise to many...but some people have morals and convictions. And it's less about discriminating as it is choosing to act according to those morals and convictions.
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...I'm open to correction. I'm not perfect. But I will only accept corrections that are backed up with verse/fact and consistent with the themes of the books. "So and so scholar determined X was wrong" isn't enough to override what I've gathered from my own careful readings.