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.
Arguing that your religion should allow you to discriminate puts you on the wrong side of history, just like it put the preachers and religious groups who argued that slavery and segregation and Jim Crow had biblical justification. 50 years from now, people will roll their eyes at this attempt at justification as well.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
Moderator for: Oregon (and subforums), Auto Racing.
When you signed up for an account, you agreed to abide by the site's TOS and rules. You really should look through them.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
City-Data FAQ: //www.city-data.com/forum/faq/
Did the baker ONLY sell to Christians? I'm sure he was happy to bake cakes for all religions. In any event, it's not as if the couple in question couldn't have simply gone to another baker. They went to him to target him.
I'm not the one that brought up the Muslim real estate developer however personally I think both cases are wrong. I don't remember the Colorado case but do know that the Oregon case the lesbian went to the baker her mother had recently used for her wedding cake and opponents of ga6 rights accused her if targetting that baker even though both sides showed testimony to the contrary.
As far as another baker available that is the worse excuse for allowing discrimination. Of course there will always be another pkace, whether in the same city, , different city, different state or different country. I don't think Rosa Park was told that she was not discriminated against as she could try sitting in the front of a bus in Winnipeg or Paris or Eugene Oregon.
Earlier today on Facebook someone posted a compilation of signs from the past, zNo Jews this is a Christian Community, No Dogs, Spaniards or Mexicans, Whites Only etc. Those were all acceptable in the past. This farce that supplying products for a SSM is against your religion will too.You've lost the case of are SSM legal, the point of being able to make them as inconvenient as possible will get old and will backfire in the long run. Or I guess it can go the other way so that segregation , racism and sex ism are the norm again.
I owned a bakery for decades in boston. There are 3 things that don't belong in business, sex, politics and religion.
The baker was a fool.
The Co rights board were bigotted.
I'd make their cake in a flash, I'm not in any religion but I'm tight with God.
Arguing that your religion should allow you to discriminate puts you on the wrong side of history, just like it put the preachers and religious groups who argued that slavery and segregation and Jim Crow had biblical justification. 50 years from now, people will roll their eyes at this attempt at justification as well.
I think that's correct. This whole gay -thing will become an embarrassing episode that certain churches and christians will tall over themselves to claim "Oh -that wasn't us!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I'm not the one that brought up the Muslim real estate developer however personally I think both cases are wrong. I don't remember the Colorado case but do know that the Oregon case the lesbian went to the baker her mother had recently used for her wedding cake and opponents of ga6 rights accused her if targetting that baker even though both sides showed testimony to the contrary.
As far as another baker available that is the worse excuse for allowing discrimination. Of course there will always be another pkace, whether in the same city, , different city, different state or different country. I don't think Rosa Park was told that she was not discriminated against as she could try sitting in the front of a bus in Winnipeg or Paris or Eugene Oregon.
Earlier today on Facebook someone posted a compilation of signs from the past, zNo Jews this is a Christian Community, No Dogs, Spaniards or Mexicans, Whites Only etc. Those were all acceptable in the past. This farce that supplying products for a SSM is against your religion will too.You've lost the case of are SSM legal, the point of being able to make them as inconvenient as possible will get old and will backfire in the long run. Or I guess it can go the other way so that segregation , racism and sex ism are the norm again.
I think you also hit it. The legal battle is over. What we are getting now is people (and the Usual Suspect states) who defy the law shouting unfair when it gets applied. It's the same with no creationism in the science class and no endorsement of a particular religion on government property. These are cases that are over, and what we are getting are people trying to circumvent the law or openly defy it. It's a battle between civil law and religious law. Let nobody have any illusions about that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-07-2018 at 09:33 PM..
The law applies whether you are are providing essential services like removing garbage or unnecessary ones like selling it.
The law should not apply towards discriminating against activities or unique requests. This had nothing to do with the individuals which is what discrimination law is about. The only discrimination is against an immoral ceremony.
The law should not apply towards discriminating against activities or unique requests. This had nothing to do with the individuals which is what discrimination law is about. The only discrimination is against an immoral ceremony.
I'm not the one that brought up the Muslim real estate developer however personally I think both cases are wrong. I don't remember the Colorado case but do know that the Oregon case the lesbian went to the baker her mother had recently used for her wedding cake and opponents of ga6 rights accused her if targetting that baker even though both sides showed testimony to the contrary.
As far as another baker available that is the worse excuse for allowing discrimination. Of course there will always be another pkace, whether in the same city, , different city, different state or different country. I don't think Rosa Park was told that she was not discriminated against as she could try sitting in the front of a bus in Winnipeg or Paris or Eugene Oregon.
Earlier today on Facebook someone posted a compilation of signs from the past, zNo Jews this is a Christian Community, No Dogs, Spaniards or Mexicans, Whites Only etc. Those were all acceptable in the past. This farce that supplying products for a SSM is against your religion will too.You've lost the case of are SSM legal, the point of being able to make them as inconvenient as possible will get old and will backfire in the long run. Or I guess it can go the other way so that segregation , racism and sex ism are the norm again.
Would a Jewish or African-American bake shop be required to supply a cake to a White supremacist group? The stubborn refusal from the pro-gay side to acknowledge that this is a very gray murky issue only shows me a bias against Christians. Forcing business owners to do something against their will is not the answer either. Yet you are advocating for punishing people who just want to live a moral life and not get involved with gay marriage. I'm sure Mr. Phillips will not want to bake cakes for incest unions in the future when that becomes the next big social acceptance.
Would a Jewish or African-American bake shop be required to supply a cake to a White supremacist group? The stubborn refusal from the pro-gay side to acknowledge that this is a very gray murky issue only shows me a bias against Christians.
How is your inability to think clearly bias against Christians?
1) White supremacists are out to hurt others. Homosexuality is something different.
2) The white supremacist group can be refused service because it is not on religious grounds.
2) How can a law that protects Christians be biased against them? You can not refuse service based on religious grounds in exactly the same way you that can not be discriminated against because you are a Christian.
Arguing that your religion should allow you to discriminate puts you on the wrong side of history, just like it put the preachers and religious groups who argued that slavery and segregation and Jim Crow had biblical justification. 50 years from now, people will roll their eyes at this attempt at justification as well.
Again...no one is asking to discriminate. And honestly? We don't care about what "side of history" you want to suggest we're on. Our nation allows us freedom of religion. To suggest that our religion is simply something that doesn't matter is what Justice Kennedy actually had the issue with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I'm not the one that brought up the Muslim real estate developer however personally I think both cases are wrong. I don't remember the Colorado case but do know that the Oregon case the lesbian went to the baker her mother had recently used for her wedding cake and opponents of ga6 rights accused her if targetting that baker even though both sides showed testimony to the contrary.
As far as another baker available that is the worse excuse for allowing discrimination. Of course there will always be another pkace, whether in the same city, , different city, different state or different country. I don't think Rosa Park was told that she was not discriminated against as she could try sitting in the front of a bus in Winnipeg or Paris or Eugene Oregon.
Earlier today on Facebook someone posted a compilation of signs from the past, zNo Jews this is a Christian Community, No Dogs, Spaniards or Mexicans, Whites Only etc. Those were all acceptable in the past. This farce that supplying products for a SSM is against your religion will too.You've lost the case of are SSM legal, the point of being able to make them as inconvenient as possible will get old and will backfire in the long run. Or I guess it can go the other way so that segregation , racism and sex ism are the norm again.
My understanding is that this baker had served them before. He didn't care how they lived. He just didn't want to be forced to make a cake for that event, which he was morally opposed to. This has nothing to do with discrimination against a person.
How is your inability to think clearly bias against Christians?
1) White supremacists are out to hurt others. Homosexuality is something different.
2) The white supremacist group can be refused service because it is not on religious grounds.
2) How can a law that protects Christians be biased against them? You can not refuse service based on religious grounds in exactly the same way you that can not be discriminated against because you are a Christian.
Actually, Justice Kennedy disagreed with you. He found it quite troubling that people would simply cast aside religious freedoms the way you suggest. 6 of the other 8 justices also agreed with him.
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.
