Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (contradiction, Earth)
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 your example was a poor one. If you want to talk about not following immoral laws you should talk about laws that actually enjoined immoral actions like stoning offenders. The law you cited was not immoral, only the institution it regulated was and without the institution the laws become moot.
But our Constitution allows for a man to freely practice his religion without interference from the government. He has a right to practice his religion.
I guess that's the crux of the argument. Is baking a cake practicing one's religion? And if it IS, then someone can justify ANY sort of action they take, even if it is discriminatory towards other people as "practicing one's religion."
That's my concern. I think we'd agree discrimination is illegal. As is murder. Yet, if my religion dictates I must make a human sacrifice - then what? I know that is an extreme, but there is a huge gray area in between. And that WILL be tested, all in the name of "practicing one's religion."
When you drill it down to the bone, I don't think the baker was discriminating at all. He set a policy in his store that applied to ALL customers. The policy is he doesn't do gay weddings. Period. So if straight people came in asking for a cake for a gay wedding, he would have refused as well. See. It has nothing to do with the individuals so you can't claim personal discrimination.
So he allegedly set an illegal policy to discriminate, therefore he was not discriminating or breaking the law.
Or try having a counter argument without resorting to the crunch of comparing to racial discrimination. It's not the same thing. You can't separate racial discrimination from it being against a person's physical identity. A SSM is a wedding that celebrates immoral behavior. Behavior does not have anything to do with a person's identity. You have people changing their sexual orientations these days like they change into a new pair of jeans.
The government was flat out wrong to classify sexual orientation as a protected class, and there are still quite a number of states that don't do it either.
So you think an employer should be able to fire someone when he finds out they are gay, or a landlord kick out a gay tenent? Because without being a protected class that is perfectly legal. If we can't use racial as an example then why not religion. The baker could switch religions to one that does not consider a union between two people of the same sex immoral. People switch religions and even religions have switched rules governing homosexuality. Besides i did use Jews as an example as well.
You have argued that wedding cakes are a luxury item and therefore should not be protected rights. Now you are saying that denying jobs and a place to live should not be protected either. I actually do understand that you believe homosexuality is immoral and they should not be given the same rights as you and most other people. How is selling a cake for a wedding supporting an immoral act when it is not the sexual act (the sin in your terms) that the cake is for but for the couple (sinners) and their friends and family to celebrate the commitment between the two? Yes the act of not selling a cake for a SSM celebration is truly hate the sin and hate the sinner. The only immoral act I see here is blatant discrimination by the baker. If a gay couple wishes for wording or decoration of the cake on such a way that he would not do it for a black couple or an Evangelical Christian couple now we are speaking about a different story.
And just putting two names of the same gender on a cake is immoral now the baker becomes a judge of a person's parents for naming them. My wife's name is as often a male's as a female's and a knew a couple whose names were spelt exactly the same as each other and they were of opposite gender.
Following the religion includes not doing actions that support gay marriage. I'm sure the baker doesn't want to stand before God and explain why he aided in helping people living a destructive sinful lifestyle. So the government is saying they can not follow their religion.
So you agree Satanists can sacrifice virgins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It has everything to do with the immorality of forcing business owners to work against their consciousness.
If is conscience requires him to break the law, he should not run that business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Since people on your side fully embrace homosexuality then they are incapable of understanding things from the baker's perspective.
I understand his position very well. But well done for projecting your inability to be compassionate about two people who love each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The dog example is an equivalent scenario that most people can agree with. Most people would balk at the idea of government forcing them to sell a lovely dog to someone who will eat it. Do you think the government has a right to force them to sell the dog? Yes or No. I'll keep asking until you give me a direct answer. For once!!!
1) selling dogs is not a religion, so it is not equivalent.
2) the dog owner sells PETS, not food, which is different to selling cakes to people who want to buy cakes. So still a different, irrelevant argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So you have compassion for a father who wants to marry his grown daughter? Hey it's only a celebration of love. Beautiful right?
Because this happens all the time, right? Especially with Herr Straw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If that's your opinion of God then you are ignorant of Christianity. God didn't make them gay. A sin fallen world did.
Where the fall in your fable is your god punishing people. You HAVE red Genesis 3, have you not?
I guess that's the crux of the argument. Is baking a cake practicing one's religion? And if it IS, then someone can justify ANY sort of action they take, even if it is discriminatory towards other people as "practicing one's religion."
That's my concern. I think we'd agree discrimination is illegal. As is murder. Yet, if my religion dictates I must make a human sacrifice - then what? I know that is an extreme, but there is a huge gray area in between. And that WILL be tested, all in the name of "practicing one's religion."
It sounds like you desire one generalization that will solve or apply to everything. That will never happen; there will always be a huge gray area for sure. Each case needs to be argued on it's particular merits and conditions. There was no intent for this ruling to state that any person or business is justified to do anything it wants by claiming religious beliefs, and it is unfair to take this ruling and make such an assertion. No one is stating "practicing one's religion" gives them freedom to legally do anything they want.
Nope, if your religious beliefs involves criminal or behavior that harms people then there has to be some limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
If is conscience requires him to break the law, he should not run that business.
Typical callous attitude. The guy had the business way before your ilk managed to get the government to celebrate immorality. That's not his fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I understand his position very well. But well done for projecting your inability to be compassionate about two people who love each other.
All you are doing is window dressing sin with the word love. I can do the same for incest and now it's not so easy to accept huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
1) selling dogs is not a religion, so it is not equivalent.
2) the dog owner sells PETS, not food, which is different to selling cakes to people who want to buy cakes. So still a different, irrelevant argument.
Wow, what a copout. You are desperately grasping at minor details. The argument is completely the same. Both owners are in situations that compromise their moral beliefs. Now the question to YOU is it is wrong for the government to force both owners to conduct business despite their moral beliefs. Yes or No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Because this happens all the time, right? Especially with Herr Straw.
What a collosal dodge. The frequency is completely irrelevant. Yes or no, do you support a father marrying his grown daughter? If not, then explain to me why that is not being hypocritical since you made the argument about two people just wanting to celebrate their love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Where the fall in your fable is your god punishing people. You HAVE red Genesis 3, have you not?
You have zero proof that the Bible is fable. Just wishful thinking on your part. Yes i've read Genesis, especially the part where it predicts that coming of Jesus hundreds of years before it happened.
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.
