Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings

[red states rule]

What the hell is happening to America? Now we are FORCED to condone activity we find objectionable on religious grounds?





A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.
Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf) that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.

In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

Mullins and Craig married in Massachussets and had originally gone to Masterpiece in July 2012 because they wanted to a cake for their wedding reception in Colorado. When Phillips refused, the pair went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) on their behalf.

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."


http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

[fj1200]

What the hell is happening to America? Now we are FORCED to condone activity we find objectionable on religious grounds?

No, they are being forced to engage in commerce with a protected class. But that's been true for about 50 years now.

[red states rule]

It did not take long for the lefties here to rush to the defense of the gays. Once again libs show their liberalism to so damn awesome it MUST be mandatory or you will face fines and jail time

Forget religious objections if you are a Christian

Now if you are a Muslim.............................

[fj1200]

It did not take long for the lefties here to rush to the defense of the gays.

Actually you were just being corrected as to how the law would view the situation instead of through the eyes of an anti-gay rantical. :shrug:

Nevertheless, I disagree with the law. The erosion of property rights has gone too far and are largely unnecessary especially in this case.

[red states rule]

Like the gay waitress who made up the story about being denied a tip because she was gay, these gays are now out for all the free publicity they can get. The baker would make them anything EXCEPT a wedding cake but that is not good enough

No, they will use a liberal Judge to IMPOSE their will on others and FORCE people to do what they want

Like most libs that is the only way they can ever get what they want - by sheer force.

[fj1200]

The baker would make them anything EXCEPT a wedding cake but that is not good enough

So the baker would accept their sinful dollars up to the point that they were willing to make a (state-validated) commitment to each other? I'd say that the baker loses a bit of moral high ground right there; We Christians hate the sin and not the sinner right?

[red states rule]

If this baker has to make these assholes a wedding cake, I would lace it with a box of Ex Lax. It is fitting ingredient for this occasion

The baker tired to compromise with these idiots but as usual they are only out for the love and affection of the liberal media

[fj1200]

:rolleyes:

[red states rule]

OK if the Ex Lax is out then make the idiots a huge Fruit cake and top it off with two Ken dolls

BTW, why did the gays postpone their wedding over this? Is there only ONE bakery in all of CO? Again, they are milking it for they can

[jimnyc]

I am curious. For example, there is a small jewelry shop not far from me, mostly crafts and homemade stuff, but also some high end jewelry as well. It's 100% Muslim owned, which is clear by the front window filled with Arabic writing, and the many, many of the things for sale are Muslim based. They have like plaques with Allah related scriptures on it, weaved wood things with similar writings. I know they have incense burners (very expensive, hand made), also with scripture on it. Point being, so many things within this shop are Islam related.

Now, what if someone goes in there and asks them to make/create a similar item to what they sell, but with writing on it showing Jesus being the son of God type stuff, or great things about Christianity. I'm not saying what the outcome would be, but I KNOW they won't touch anything Christian related, or anything saying that Jesus is God. I wonder if the community would agree, and whether the courts would rule the same, and force them to involve themselves in something they are so very much against, belief wise.

[red states rule]

I am curious. For example, there is a small jewelry shop not far from me, mostly crafts and homemade stuff, but also some high end jewelry as well. It's 100% Muslim owned, which is clear by the front window filled with Arabic writing, and the many, many of the things for sale are Muslim based. They have like plaques with Allah related scriptures on it, weaved wood things with similar writings. I know they have incense burners (very expensive, hand made), also with scripture on it. Point being, so many things within this shop are Islam related.

Now, what if someone goes in there and asks them to make/create a similar item to what they sell, but with writing on it showing Jesus being the son of God type stuff, or great things about Christianity. I'm not saying what the outcome would be, but I KNOW they won't touch anything Christian related, or anything saying that Jesus is God. I wonder if the community would agree, and whether the courts would rule the same, and force them to involve themselves in something they are so very much against, belief wise.

In all probably Jim, the customer asking for the Christen writing would be attacked in the liberal media for trying to instigate a confrontation and insensitive to the feeling of the Muslims

I am sure CARE would be many choice words for the Christian customer as well

The Christian would probably not force the issue and so somewhere else for what they want

[revelarts]

No, they are being forced to engage in commerce with a protected class. But that's been true for about 50 years now.

so the courts can backhandedly define what religious activities are permissible for a business owner.
using legal language doesn't change the religious effect FJ.

Basically it's telling a Jew to serve pork chops on Saturday at a kosher deli, becuase it's the law not to discriminate on pork eaters and some "'are born' to eat pork chops on Saturday".

[red states rule]

so the courts can backhandedly define what religious activities are permissible for a business owner.
using legal language doesn't change the religious effect FJ.

Basically it's telling a Jew to serve pork chops on Saturday at a kosher deli, becuase it's the law not to discriminate on pork eaters and some "'are born' to eat pork chops on Saturday".

Rev he have Muslim terrorists and inmates in prison suing US taxpayers over what is on the prison menu

I do not see libs speaking out about that. Oh, it is NOT cool to disagree with Muslims

But this is an outrage. I hope the Owner "delivers" a cake and gives the gay PITA's a wedding they will never forget

[revelarts]

So the baker would accept their sinful dollars up to the point that they were willing to make a (state-validated) commitment to each other? I'd say that the baker loses a bit of moral high ground right there; We Christians hate the sin and not the sinner right?

nothing but the wedding cake would be sinful FJ.

birthday, Christmas, party cakes
what's the sin FJ?

there's no moral high ground loss.
The sin is homosexual sex and marriage.
hate the sin right?
or should Christians make cakes to celebrate the sin?

[red states rule]

nothing but the wedding cake would be sinful FJ.

birthday, Christmas, party cakes
what's the sin FJ?

there's no moral high ground loss.
The sin is homosexual sex and marriage.
hate the sin right?
or should Christians make cakes to celebrate the sin?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to revelarts again.

[Little-Acorn]

This was inevitable.

Not long ago the SUpreme Court ruled that we could be forced to conform to liberal notions of what "good" health insurance was, by the Federal government, despite a complete lack of any constitutional authorization for that force.

Now another Federal court is ruling that we can be forced to conform to liberal notions of "equality", by the Federal government, despite a complete lack of any constitutional authorization for that force.

Slippery slope.

It's just a matter of time before some official decides we all should really eat more vegetables, and crafts a law forcing us all to do that, too.

Fortunately, Michelle isn't an elected official with the power to make laws, or it would have already happened by now.

But it will.

[red states rule]

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/208297974/celebrate_diversity_bumper_sticker.jpg?color=White&height=460&width=460&qv=90

[tailfins]

If this baker has to make these assholes a wedding cake, I would lace it with a box of Ex Lax. It is fitting ingredient for this occasion

The baker tired to compromise with these idiots but as usual they are only out for the love and affection of the liberal media

That would be assault. However, given their inexperience making such cakes, it could turn out looking like a first grader made the cake. :thumb:

[red states rule]

That would be assault. However, given their inexperience making such cakes, they could make it look like a first grader did made the cake.

Hey "accidents" happen :laugh2: Again, the gays can go to another bakery and NOT delay their "wedding"

[fj1200]

so the courts can backhandedly define what religious activities are permissible for a business owner.
using legal language doesn't change the religious effect FJ.

Basically it's telling a Jew to serve pork chops on Saturday at a kosher deli, becuase it's the law not to discriminate on pork eaters and some "'are born' to eat pork chops on Saturday".

1. Nothing backhanded at all about the decision. Sexual orientation is a protected class in CO thus the basis for the ruling.
2. Your analogy is incorrect. A kosher deli wouldn't be selling pork in the first place. The decision doesn't force the baker into a line of business that he isn't already in.
3. I already said I disagreed with the law.


nothing but the wedding cake would be sinful FJ.

birthday, Christmas, party cakes
what's the sin FJ?

there's no moral high ground loss.
The sin is homosexual sex and marriage.
hate the sin right?
or should Christians make cakes to celebrate the sin?

The wedding cake isn't sinful, it's just the symbol of their commitment. The "sin" has already occurred which he apparently was more than happy to endorse by stating he would make a shower cake. Or do you honestly think that the gay couple was celibate until their NY marriage?

Besides, state-sponsored marriage has nothing to do with religion in this day and age.

[fj1200]

This was inevitable.

Not long ago the SUpreme Court ruled that we could be forced to conform to liberal notions of what "good" health insurance was, by the Federal government, despite a complete lack of any constitutional authorization for that force.

Now another Federal court is ruling that we can be forced to conform to liberal notions of "equality", by the Federal government, despite a complete lack of any constitutional authorization for that force.

Slippery slope.

It's just a matter of time before some official decides we all should really eat more vegetables, and crafts a law forcing us all to do that, too.

Fortunately, Michelle isn't an elected official with the power to make laws, or it would have already happened by now.

But it will.

A. It wasn't a Federal Court. Or do you not believe in State's Rights now?
B. Apples and oranges. SCOTUS ruled that you had to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. Nevertheless the "equality" door was opened 50 years ago.


Hey "accidents" happen :laugh2: Again, the gays can go to another bakery and NOT delay their "wedding"

They're already married. So said the State of New York.

[red states rule]

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/182201069/marriage_equation_rectangle_sticker.jpg?color=Whit e&height=460&width=460&qv=90

[jimnyc]

That would be my solution, I would just make a crappy cake. Let them sue for the return of their money if they are unsatisfied with the outcome, which I would gladly give back to them. I still can't comprehend why they would want to do business with someone who doesn't want their money anyway, when they can go to so many other places. They have a choice, now the owner doesn't, other than the effort he puts into his cakes.

[red states rule]

That would be my solution, I would just make a crappy cake. Let them sue for the return of their money if they are unsatisfied with the outcome, which I would gladly give back to them. I still can't comprehend why they would want to do business with someone who doesn't want their money anyway, when they can go to so many other places. They have a choice, now the owner doesn't, other than the effort he puts into his cakes.

You cannot reason with these people Jim so the only way out to make the worst cake possible. The gays and the Judge can do nothing about it and the mater is closed. If they want a ruined "wedding" because they care more about the attention they are getting that is there problem

[fj1200]

I still can't comprehend why they would want to do business with someone who doesn't want their money anyway...

They don't necessarily but they're libs and that's what libs do. Look to government to address grievances.

[red states rule]

Hey if gay libs cannot win people over to support their life style with reason, then they will FORCE them to accept by taking them to court, and in some case, putting them out of business

[logroller]

so the courts can backhandedly define what religious activities are permissible for a business owner.
using legal language doesn't change the religious effect FJ.

Basically it's telling a Jew to serve pork chops on Saturday at a kosher deli, becuase it's the law not to discriminate on pork eaters and some "'are born' to eat pork chops on Saturday".
It's not like that at all. The cake shop does sell wedding cakes; whereas a kosher deli does NOT sell pork. It would be like a kosher deli refusing to sell a Passover specialty to a Christian. If the cake maker didn't make wedding cakes at all, as a kosher deli doesn't sell pork at all, that's non-discriminatory; but if they do make such cakes and refuse to make a cake for certain people-- that is discrimination. Same thing as Jim's example-- if the muslim owned shop refused to sell their religious tokens to a non-muslim that's discrimination-- whereas if the just don't sell Christian items at all, not to anyone, that's non-discriminatory.

Whether or not discrimination should be allowed is a topic worthy of consideration. Do you believe a business should be able to discriminate based upon religious beliefs? For example a kosher deli not serving Christians?

[jimnyc]

It's not like that at all. The cake shop does sell wedding cakes;

I wonder if he just put up a sign and literally stopped making wedding cakes for ALL couples, but still baked everything else. I suppose then he would be in the safe to simply say he can't do it as they don't do wedding cakes, no?

[red states rule]

What ever happened to one of the rules of business

We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone?

Good God libs are like a cancer and they destroy everything they come in contact with. Make a shity cake, ruin the "wedding" and have a good laugh afterwards

[jimnyc]

Whether or not discrimination should be allowed is a topic worthy of consideration. Do you believe a business should be able to discriminate based upon religious beliefs? For example a kosher deli not serving Christians?

I think any privately owned business should be allowed to do business with who they please and turn away who they please, just as the consumer can pick and choose where they want to spend their money. It's different though if it's somehow not private and a business is getting any funding from the government, which then I would believe the rules should be different. I just have a difficult time with others telling me who I have to do business with and how. If I own a small computer business, I should be able to deny my business to black folks for example, even if the decision is retarded, as it's MY business. (and save the racist stuff, Gabby, as I wouldn't deny them business, just an example).

[jimnyc]

We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone?

Technically those signs and such are still legal - outside the discrimination act of course. You can deny business to someone if they're wearing a Giants Jersey, which is discrimination, but you can't deny business based on sex, religion, race and all that other crap. And I disagree with that too, even though it's been law for eons.

[revelarts]

..2. Your analogy is incorrect. A kosher deli wouldn't be selling pork in the first place. The decision doesn't force the baker into a line of business that he isn't already in.

the baker hasn't knowingly sold a wedding cake for homosexual marriage.
my analogy is correct.
And ... if a man and woman marring can be considered the same as same sex marriage, then my analogy is more than good enough.





The wedding cake isn't sinful, it's just the symbol of their commitment. The "sin" has already occurred which he apparently was more than happy to endorse by stating he would make a shower cake. Or do you honestly think that the gay couple was celibate until their NY marriage?
Besides, state-sponsored marriage has nothing to do with religion in this day and age.

"The wedding cake isn't sinful, it's just the symbol of their commitment"... to SIN.
the "neutral" state sponsors are forcing a biz to work to celebrate a Sin.

[aboutime]

The Judge's ruling SHOULD be overturned since...Like Obamacare. Government CANNOT force anyone to SELL, or BUY any product. It IS Unconstitutional.

And I don't care who disagree's with me on this.

OBAMA, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, and the SUPREME COURT do not have the constitutional discretion to FORCE any American to Sell, Buy, or Trade ANYTHING.

[revelarts]

It's not like that at all. The cake shop does sell wedding cakes; whereas a kosher deli does NOT sell pork. It would be like a kosher deli refusing to sell a Passover specialty to a Christian. If the cake maker didn't make wedding cakes at all, as a kosher deli doesn't sell pork at all, that's non-discriminatory; but if they do make such cakes and refuse to make a cake for certain people-- that is discrimination. Same thing as Jim's example-- if the muslim owned shop refused to sell their religious tokens to a non-muslim that's discrimination-- whereas if the just don't sell Christian items at all, not to anyone, that's non-discriminatory.

Whether or not discrimination should be allowed is a topic worthy of consideration. Do you believe a business should be able to discriminate based upon religious beliefs? For example a kosher deli not serving Christians?

Let's use your analogy.
"It would be like a kosher deli refusing to sell a Passover specialty to a Christian."

if the kosher owner was informed that they were going to pissed on the passover item. and the owner refused to sell because he did not want the item desacrated.
then he'd be withen his religious rights to do so.

If a Muslim book store was selling Korans and knew a hispanic Westborugh church representative were coming by to buy Korans to burn. the shop owner might not sell the books to the group.
Should he be sued and FORCED to sell the books. is it discrimination? is it HATE not to sell?

the place where the religious argument pivots is where the known intent of the purchase itself is CLEARLY unambiguously religiously contrary/offensive to the selling party's faith.

[fj1200]

If I own a small computer business, I should be able to deny my business to black folks for example, even if the decision is retarded, as it's MY business. (and save the racist stuff, Gabby, as I wouldn't deny them business, just an example).

But you can't and haven't been able to discriminate on race, etc. for decades.

[aboutime]

But you can't and haven't been able to discriminate on race, etc. for decades.


Easy remedy for all of that. Just ask them for a PHOTO ID, and a Social Security number you can check-out, and verify.

No need to discriminate. If they qualify, and have the OBAMA BUCKS...they get it.

[fj1200]

the baker hasn't knowingly sold a wedding cake for homosexual marriage.
my analogy is correct.
And ... if a man and woman marring can be considered the same as same sex marriage, then my analogy is more than good enough.

You may like your analogy but it is off target. He has offered to make a "shower cake" which confirms his willingness to bake a cake for "sinners." He's just making a political statement by refusing a "gay marriage" cake IMO. I'd like to say he's within his rights to do that but at this point he is not.


"The wedding cake isn't sinful, it's just the symbol of their commitment"... to SIN.
the "neutral" state sponsors are forcing a biz to work to celebrate a Sin.

That's your opinion re: sin but the question here is with the state law; The baker is in clear violation of it. I would love for SCOTUS to take up cases like this and confirm the property rights of individuals even if I disagree.

[jimnyc]

But you can't and haven't been able to discriminate on race, etc. for decades.

Yep, that's why I was saying that one SHOULD be able to deny the business to who they want, but the discrimination act forbids it. I just disagree with it is all, I think people should be able to discriminate within business, so long as it's a private business.

[fj1200]

Yep, that's why I was saying that one SHOULD be able to deny the business to who they want, but the discrimination act forbids it. I just disagree with it is all, I think people should be able to discriminate within business, so long as it's a private business.

I agree too... to a point.

[jimnyc]

I agree too... to a point.

Yeah, I'm not saying be a hate monger and deny maliciously, but in an instance like this, where it truly does go against ones beliefs. I just don't think it should be open/shut, that a private business owner MUST do business and in certain manners.

[Abbey Marie]

1. Nothing backhanded at all about the decision. Sexual orientation is a protected class in CO thus the basis for the ruling.
2. Your analogy is incorrect. A kosher deli wouldn't be selling pork in the first place. The decision doesn't force the baker into a line of business that he isn't already in.
3. I already said I disagreed with the law.



The wedding cake isn't sinful, it's just the symbol of their commitment. The "sin" has already occurred which he apparently was more than happy to endorse by stating he would make a shower cake. Or do you honestly think that the gay couple was celibate until their NY marriage?

Besides, state-sponsored marriage has nothing to do with religion in this day and age.

I'm not sure that the bolded is 100% correct. The deli may not sell pork, just as the bakery may not make cakes with two male figurines on top. Or in the shape of two intertwined penises. (Yuk). It is no more difficult to order pork products than it is to order two male figurines. In both cases, the proprietor is disgusted by the product. I'd say it's more a question of degree than black and white as you've stated.

In any event, I'd say a closer analogy to the OP than the deli/pork, would be to question if an atheist bakery can legally refuse to make a cake in the shape of a Christian cross with the words "God is our Creator" written on it.

[revelarts]

You may like your analogy but it is off target. He has offered to make a "shower cake" which confirms his willingness to bake a cake for "sinners." He's just making a political statement by refusing a "gay marriage" cake IMO. I'd like to say he's within his rights to do that but at this point he is not.

it's not political it's religious.
take another look at my point.



That's your opinion re: sin but the question here is with the state law; The baker is in clear violation of it. I would love for SCOTUS to take up cases like this and confirm the property rights of individuals even if I disagree.
you called them sinners just a minute ago yourself.
so why are questioning my use of the word sin here?


but the questions is whether state law can force someone to do things against their religious faith.
the answer should be NO.
1st amendment right, freedom of religion and free exercise thereof.
The state ruling is unconstitutional. but some folks don't want to acknowledge freedom of religion they only want to see 'state law' as read by 1 judge.
did this go to a jury BTW , 'right to trial by jury' gone by the wayside as well by 'state law'.
funny how state law trumps the constituinon in some places but in others the feds and constition are the "supreme law o da land" and the 9th and 10th amendments are null and void. but that's another story.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure that the bolded is 100% correct. The deli may not sell pork, just as the bakery may not make cakes with two male figurines on top. Or in the shape of two intertwined penises. (Yuk). It is no more difficult to order pork products than it is to order two male figurines. In both cases, the proprietor is disgusted by the product. I'd say it's more a question of degree than black and white as you've stated.

In any event, I'd say a closer analogy to the OP than the deli/pork, would be to question if an atheist bakery can legally refuse to make a cake in the shape of a Christian cross with the words "God is our Creator" written on it.

You're kidding right? And yes it is more difficult. The only issue of black and white I've stated is what the law says. The baker refused to sell a product that he supplies to a protected group whereas the mythical kosher deli can't sell something he doesn't supply.

[fj1200]

it's not political it's religious.
take another look at my point.

I understand he has a religious objection to a political solution. The law makes no distinction. Should it? :dunno: Do I disagree with the law? Yes.


you called them sinners just a minute ago yourself.
so why are questioning my use of the word sin here?


but the questions is whether state law can force someone to do things against their religious faith.
the answer should be NO.
1st amendment right, freedom of religion and free exercise thereof.
The state ruling is unconstitutional. but some folks don't want to acknowledge freedom of religion they only want to see 'state law' as read by 1 judge.
did this go to a jury BTW , 'right to trial by jury' gone by the wayside as well by 'state law'.
funny how state law trumps the constituinon in some places but in others the feds and constition are the "supreme law o da land" and the 9th and 10th amendments are null and void. but that's another story.

Pardon me but I stated that they were "sinners" (in quotes) acknowledging your belief.

But I do agree with your question; Can they? SCOTUS is taking up a similar issue as to birth control and ACA but I don't know if it carries over from that to this. I certainly hope that they affirm an individuals right to their beliefs but it is in no way assured.

As to why no jury... probably something in the law itself I would guess. This was only an ALJ.

[logroller]

I wonder if he just put up a sign and literally stopped making wedding cakes for ALL couples, but still baked everything else. I suppose then he would be in the safe to simply say he can't do it as they don't do wedding cakes, no?
that would be non-discriminatory.

[revelarts]

Yeah, I'm not saying be a hate monger and deny maliciously, but in an instance like this, where it truly does go against ones beliefs. I just don't think it should be open/shut, that a private business owner MUST do business and in certain manners.

it may be an honest way to avoid the issue.
But here again we are falling into the trap of limiting our freedoms because of crazy laws meant to protect us.

just as people said "well if you don't fly you won't have to worry about the TSA searching n groping you against the constitution"
here we are again with the concept of Stopping doing something you were already doing because the gov't is trying to "HELP" someone.

I am not for discrimination in no way , but religious people have rights and people don't get to tell others to change the faith they've had for 1000's of years because they don't like it and suddendly they've got a bit of political power and they
just feel they can COMPLETELY ignore the those well established tenants.

FJ, you asked is Homosexuality a Sin.


..Romans 1
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=KJV;AMP#fen-AMP-27956d)]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

...
1 Corinthians 6
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God....


now when i read in the Bible "God is love" i'm suppose to take that at face value.
AND when i read the above passages seems to me i'm suppose to take it at face value as well.


'adultery is sin, homosexuality is sin, idolatry is sin, theft is sin, habitual drunkenness and cursing sin...'

the state has no say in what the many people can CLEARLY see the scriptures describes as sin.
Modern pastors and popes may want to in some way dismiss and somehow contort these and other passages to mean it's NOT sin.
that's between them and God.
but others of us who are not blinded by the enlightened current cultural immoral fads still just read it like plain ol simply folk.
Homosexuality is one of many sins. period.
Others don't have to believe it.
Others don't have to believe idolatry or murder are sins either.
But many Christian still do. And we should not be forced to participate in the commemoration and lifelong commitment of others to sin.

Should a Christian be forced to bake a commemoration cake for some one to dedicate their lives to the worship of Kali?

Seems to me there's no question. AND that a free society would EASILY get that. But the POLITICAL issue here is not freedom or really discrimination.
it's the attempt to force others to accept a series of sinful act as positive respected state of being.

Some of us are not going to go there.
We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but we're not going piss God off or help damn you.

local, State, U.S. law be hanged
Christians have been on the wrong side of the law before. Some came to the u.s. to get away that type of thing.

[aboutime]

it may be an honest way to avoid the issue.
But here again we are falling into the trap of limiting our freedoms because of crazy laws meant to protect us.

just as people said "well if you don't fly you won't have to worry about the TSA searching n groping you against the constitution"
here we are again with the concept of Stopping doing something you were already doing because the gov't is trying to "HELP" someone.

I am not for discrimination in no way , but religious people have rights and people don't get to tell others to change the faith they've had for 1000's of years because they don't like it and suddendly they've got a bit of political power and they
just feel they can COMPLETELY ignore the those well established tenants.

FJ, you asked is Homosexuality a Sin.



now when i read in the Bible "God is love" i'm suppose to take that at face value.
AND when i read the above passages seems to me i'm suppose to take it at face value as well.


'adultery is sin, homosexuality is sin, idolatry is sin, theft is sin, habitual drunkenness and cursing sin...'

the state has no say in what the many people can CLEARLY see the scriptures describes as sin.
Modern pastors and popes may want to in some way dismiss and somehow contort these and other passages to mean it's NOT sin.
that's between them and God.
but others of us who are not blinded by the enlightened current cultural immoral fads still just read it like plain ol simply folk.
Homosexuality is one of many sins. period.
Others don't have to believe it.
Others don't have to believe idolatry or murder are sins either.
But many Christian still do. And we should not be forced to participate in the commemoration and lifelong commitment of others to sin.

Should a Christian be forced to bake a commemoration cake for some one to dedicate their lives to the worship of Kali?

Seems to me there's no question. AND that a free society would EASILY get that. But the POLITICAL issue here is not freedom or really discrimination.
it's the attempt to force others to accept a sinful act as positive respected state of being.

Some of us are not going to go there.
We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but we're not going piss God off or help damn you.

law be hanged



rev. Many, many decades ago. My late father warned me about falling for, and being aware of people like you who ARE anonymous, and use the Bible to hide behind.
In fact. His warnings were...to always beware of False Prophets who insist on quoting the Bible, or people who must always use Verses from the Bible, rather than speaking without the demands of obedience to the Holy scriptures.
In other words. I take very little stock, nor do I trust anyone who continually demands that everyone who does not follow your lead is incapable of personal responsibility for their thoughts, or actions.
If you take that as disrespect. So be it.
But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning.
I am honestly, and truly tired of people like you who denigrate MY religious beliefs by using them to destroy other human beings whom you disagree with in any way.

YOU SHOULD USE THE RELIGION BOARD TO MAKE YOUR SERMONS.

[revelarts]

rev. Many, many decades ago. My late father warned me about falling for, and being aware of people like you who ARE anonymous, and use the Bible to hide behind.
In fact. His warnings were...to always beware of False Prophets who insist on quoting the Bible, or people who must always use Verses from the Bible, rather than speaking without the demands of obedience to the Holy scriptures.
In other words. I take very little stock, nor do I trust anyone who continually demands that everyone who does not follow your lead is incapable of personal responsibility for their thoughts, or actions.
If you take that as disrespect. So be it.
But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning.
I am honestly, and truly tired of people like you who denigrate MY religious beliefs by using them to destroy other human beings whom you disagree with in any way.
AT believe what you sir. as i said
"Others don't have to believe it.
Others don't have to believe idolatry or murder are sins either."

but some of us do believe the Bible.
how much clearer can i make it.

believe what you want. for whatever reason you want.
just don't force me and others like me to promote yours or others ideas of faith or right living.
if that offends you I'm sorry.

make up whatever believe about right living,
you say you can figure it all out without the Bible , OK do what you want, it's between you an God.

I'm not so wise. I need the council of Jesus Christ and the prophets and the only place i know to find that is in the Bible.

[revelarts]

....

YOU SHOULD USE THE RELIGION BOARD TO MAKE YOUR SERMONS.

Are you a mod on the board now?
, is it illegal to answer with the Bible except in certain places?

AT take a break,
I'm not sure why you consider that i'm attacking you or what you believe by quoting the Bible.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, they are being forced to engage in commerce with a protected class. But that's been true for about 50 years now.
Just until the first time its gays vs. a Muslim ran business! We will see a sudden reversal of that decision! Islam commands gays are to be executed! CARE TO MAKE A SMALL BET OTHERWISE on the reversal I mentioned? --Tyr

[aboutime]

Are you a mod on the board now?
, is it illegal to answer with the Bible except in certain places?

AT take a break,
I'm not sure why you consider that i'm attacking you or what you believe by quoting the Bible.


I voiced my opinion, based on many years of experience in attempting to deal with people like you. Most often. Whenever they feel a need to overpower, or belittle someone with references to Bible verses. They are generally incapable of participating in any other kind of dialogue in Plain language. For many years, while I was in uniform. I came upon many other members in uniform who intentionally demanded an audience...in private more often; where, like you. They reminded me, or even scolded me about how I was going to hell because I somehow denied them the selfishness of their demands that I should be Born Again.
So, whenever anyone...outside of my church, or family...like you, openly uses the Bible as your only tool/defense to make a point. That is an instant turn-off, or warning for me.
This forum is where we are permitted to offer our opinions, and idea's. And somehow...You happen to be one of the ONLY members who must always bring your faith, and the Bible with you to argue, or deliver your opinions.
As a member. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
True. I don't have to read it. But the thread is of some interest to me. So, I won't intentionally NOT take part because...You are here to spread your religious idea's that may, or may not be accepted by everyone.

[revelarts]

I voiced my opinion, based on many years of experience in attempting to deal with people like you. Most often. Whenever they feel a need to overpower, or belittle someone with references to Bible verses. They are generally incapable of participating in any other kind of dialogue in Plain language. For many years, while I was in uniform. I came upon many other members in uniform who intentionally demanded an audience...in private more often; where, like you. They reminded me, or even scolded me about how I was going to hell because I somehow denied them the selfishness of their demands that I should be Born Again.
So, whenever anyone...outside of my church, or family...like you, openly uses the Bible as your only tool/defense to make a point. That is an instant turn-off, or warning for me.
This forum is where we are permitted to offer our opinions, and idea's. And somehow...You happen to be one of the ONLY members who must always bring your faith, and the Bible with you to argue, or deliver your opinions.
As a member. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
True. I don't have to read it. But the thread is of some interest to me. So, I won't intentionally NOT take part because...You are here to spread your religious idea's that may, or may not be accepted by everyone.

AT i'm sorry you've had bad experience with other people who, for good or ill, used the Bible in ways that offended you. But frankly, parts of the Bible are offensive. But Christians of any sect should not set out to use it in that fashion. I'm truly sorry they had that effect on you.
if i can use plain language, it sounds like at this point it's just an emotional issue.
I never attacked you, i don't think. You may not like it that anyone but preacher on Sunday morn'nin use the Bible but A.T. I LOVED the BIBLE. LOVE IT. And it will continue to come up in my conversation from time to time. And i make no apologies for that. However as i've said, you do not have to believe a word of it if you don't want to. Or can believe it mean anything you want it to mea. I tend to read it like i'd read the post here. it is IMO the Bible is mostly in "plain language". But it's not my intent to offend you, but honestly based on what you've said, I'm not the one causing the problem. sounds like the Bible quoting just hits your raw nerve. please don't take it out on me.

But this whole thread is about someone who refused to the serve a same sex marriage client BECAUSE of a religion that believes what the Bible says in some fashion. I'm not sure how you want to stay up on this thread and NOT have anyone bring up the Bible.
And my response was to FJ, not you, who asserted that my calling homosexuality a sin was a just a matter of my personal opinion. Before i became a Christian I thought homosexuality was pitiful, disgusting and weird, but i did not care if it was a sin or if even if there were sins. If they liked it , fine, that's their biz.
THAT was my personal opinion.

What i pointed out to FJ was that homosexuality being considered a sin is and has been the standard teaching of the Apostles and Prophets unchanged for literally millennia, not simply my willy nilly southern fried church house opinion.

My response probably won't bring you much comfort but there it is.
I've got no beef with you A.T.. But your not going to shut me up either. And i think you served to protect even MY rights to speech and religion.

[DragonStryk72]

What the hell is happening to America? Now we are FORCED to condone activity we find objectionable on religious grounds?

Okay, I have a question:Why are these people shopping for a caterer that clearly disapproves of their marriage, and their lifestyle?

Now, bear in mind, I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, since the governmental version has nothing to do with the religious side of things, but just the contractual point between two consenting adults.

I keep seeing these instances where court cases get rolling on this, and I just can't help but wonder: Why on Earth would you want these people at your wedding? What, so they can judge you, your friends, and your family in person on your special day? So that you can be secure in the knowledge that you, and your loved ones, will receive the least amount of service required by law?

I'm sorry, I'd rather go elsewhere with my business, and not bother with the hassle. Instead, they are opting to pay these people exorbitant rates (They'll find ways to run up the price without breaking the law) for what will clearly be a mediocre product.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I voiced my opinion, based on many years of experience in attempting to deal with people like you. Most often. Whenever they feel a need to overpower, or belittle someone with references to Bible verses. They are generally incapable of participating in any other kind of dialogue in Plain language. For many years, while I was in uniform. I came upon many other members in uniform who intentionally demanded an audience...in private more often; where, like you. They reminded me, or even scolded me about how I was going to hell because I somehow denied them the selfishness of their demands that I should be Born Again.
So, whenever anyone...outside of my church, or family...like you, openly uses the Bible as your only tool/defense to make a point. That is an instant turn-off, or warning for me.
This forum is where we are permitted to offer our opinions, and idea's. And somehow...You happen to be one of the ONLY members who must always bring your faith, and the Bible with you to argue, or deliver your opinions.
As a member. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
True. I don't have to read it. But the thread is of some interest to me. So, I won't intentionally NOT take part because...You are here to spread your religious idea's that may, or may not be accepted by everyone. AT, you have a right to not want to be hit with bible verses in a normal debate but you know a man should express his views in an honest way as you do! Rev seems to be doing exactly that IMHO. I DO NOT DOUBT FOR A MINUTE HE CITES BIBLE VERSES JUST AS I USED TO DO OFTEN. And back when I did it often I assure you I had no desire to beat over the head the person I was speaking to. AT, you sacrificed and fought for his right to speak his mind in a way he thinks is right. Take his word that he did not do so the beat you about the head by doing so. I do not always agree with every post he makes but know this I have seen none where I ever thought he was deliberately lying. He strikes me as being very honest just like you are. And my friend that should count for a lot. I too take pride in posting my true feelings regardless of how those feelings may or may not be accepted. Think about it and I know you'll see a bit deeper into it. --Tyr

[red states rule]

The bottom line is the arrogant gays are NOT being "discriminated " against because they are gay

The business owner does not want to accept their cake order due tot heir behavior not because they are gay

This is another attempt by the gay community is force people into granting approval for their lifestyle. Most people do not give a rats ass what these idiots do behind closed door

But they are the ones who insist on making their lifestyle public. They know they will never get the approval they are seeking so they get more obnoxious with each passing day and look for people they can sue and harass when they do not get what they want

Again make the worst cake possible and give the idiots a wedding they will never forget

[fj1200]

Just until the first time its gays vs. a Muslim ran business! We will see a sudden reversal of that decision! Islam commands gays are to be executed! CARE TO MAKE A SMALL BET OTHERWISE on the reversal I mentioned? --Tyr

Of course, of course. I forgot about the "Muzzy" aspect of it all. :rolleyes:

[Trigg]

So the baker would accept their sinful dollars up to the point that they were willing to make a (state-validated) commitment to each other? I'd say that the baker loses a bit of moral high ground right there; We Christians hate the sin and not the sinner right?


How is he loosing he moral high ground here? The article doesn't say he is anti-gay or in fact has anything at all against gay people.

He does appear to believe that a marriage is between one woman and one man.

He isn't banning gay people from his establishment he is simply standing by his convictions. Good for him!

[fj1200]

FJ, you asked is Homosexuality a Sin.

Actually I didn't ask. :poke:

To choose particular verses ignores the context of the whole passage.

Romans And Shrine Prostitution (http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html)Romans and shrine prostitution is precisely what Paul addressed in Romans 1. The ancient custom of shrine prostitution, prevalent in first century Rome, forms the historical motif of the first chapter of Romans. Ancient shrine prostitution is the most historically accurate explanation of Paul’s words in Romans chapter 1.
Non-gay Christians insist that Romans 1 must be interpreted apart from its first century historical context of shrine prostitution. This causes them to misinterpret Paul's words, specifically the words, "against nature" (http://www.gaychristian101.com/Against-Nature.html) as a universal condemnation of homosexuality, something Paul never intended and never said.

I Corinthians 6? I would suggest reviewing the original Greek and not centuries later interpretations.

Translations of "Malakoi" and "Arsenokoitai" Through History (I Cor 6:9) (https://christiangays.com/articles/malakoi.shtml)


...
but others of us who are not blinded by the enlightened current cultural immoral fads still just read it like plain ol simply folk.
Homosexuality is one of many sins. period.
...

Should a Christian be forced to bake a commemoration cake for some one to dedicate their lives to the worship of Kali?

1. Legislation is not based on religious views of sin.
2. No. But that's what the law says.

[fj1200]

How is he loosing he moral high ground here?

He is willing to accept their funds for a shower cake but not marriage. He's condoning "sin" on the one hand but won't accommodate the state sanctioning on the other. That should be within his rights but at this point it is not.

[Arbo]

Actually you were just being corrected as to how the law would view the situation instead of through the eyes of an anti-gay rantical. :shrug:

Nevertheless, I disagree with the law. The erosion of property rights has gone too far and are largely unnecessary especially in this case.

Man are you wasting your time… Of course the law is the law, but rather than get off their asses and work to change it, he you are arguing with would rather just bitch about it, because bitching is easier than taking action. One response after the OP, a simple statement of fact, and you get a 'the leftieS' .. is it good to know you are now more than one person? :laugh:

I read about this case before it went to court. I don't know that I agree with the judge. Private business should have the right to serve (and make) what they want, government shouldn't be able to dictate what you must do as a private business. What would be interesting is the response from those 'outraged' at this, if it was a black couple, man and woman, and the shop said 'we don't make cakes for black weddings', or an interracial couple. If the court came to the same decision, would they have the same outrage for those cases?

[Trigg]

He is willing to accept their funds for a shower cake but not marriage. He's condoning "sin" on the one hand but won't accommodate the state sanctioning on the other. That should be within his rights but at this point it is not.

I'm sure he would have also accepted their funds for a commitment cake.

The article said nothing about him considering what they are a "sin", those are your words.

He is against same sex marriage. Everything else is speculation on your part.

In the end it is a private business and he should be able to sell to whomever he wants. Obviously in that state he doesn't have that right.
In the future I'm sure he will simply say he is too busy at the moment to make another wedding cake.

[red states rule]

I'm sure he would have also accepted their funds for a commitment cake.

The article said nothing about him considering what they are a "sin", those are your words.

He is against same sex marriage. Everything else is speculation on your part.

In the end it is a private business and he should be able to sell to whomever he wants. Obviously in that state he doesn't have that right.
In the future I'm sure he will simply say he is too busy at the moment to make another wedding cake.

Great idea Trigg to get out of having to deal with them. Beats making a lousy cake and incurring the costs of making and delivering the cake

[fj1200]

article said nothing about him considering what they are a "sin", those are your words.

He's against gay marriage on religious reasons. But I suppose it's possible that he doesn't believe it to be a sin... Probable?

[Arbo]

He's against gay marriage on religious reasons.

So he's a muslim?


:poke:

[Abbey Marie]

rev. Many, many decades ago. My late father warned me about falling for, and being aware of people like you who ARE anonymous, and use the Bible to hide behind.
In fact. His warnings were...to always beware of False Prophets who insist on quoting the Bible, or people who must always use Verses from the Bible, rather than speaking without the demands of obedience to the Holy scriptures.
In other words. I take very little stock, nor do I trust anyone who continually demands that everyone who does not follow your lead is incapable of personal responsibility for their thoughts, or actions.
If you take that as disrespect. So be it.
But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning.
I am honestly, and truly tired of people like you who denigrate MY religious beliefs by using them to destroy other human beings whom you disagree with in any way.

YOU SHOULD USE THE RELIGION BOARD TO MAKE YOUR SERMONS.

AT, you know that I like you, but I honestly don't know where all of this is coming from. Rev does much more than quote Bible verses (though I don't know why that would bother you anyway). In addition, it is relevant to the thread.

[red states rule]

So he's a muslim?


:poke:


NO

If the baker were a Muslim he would have killed the gays - as they do in many parts of the Middle East

Being a Christian he simply did not wish to condone their behavior and respectfully declined their request for a cake

[jimnyc]

I still say it's a quite simple fix by simply stopping the baking of wedding cakes. That's really the bakeries only option, other than facing the fines, of which I don't see anyway out for them, as the discrimination act has been around forever.

[jimnyc]

Private business should have the right to serve (and make) what they want, government shouldn't be able to dictate what you must do as a private business. What would be interesting is the response from those 'outraged' at this, if it was a black couple, man and woman, and the shop said 'we don't make cakes for black weddings', or an interracial couple. If the court came to the same decision, would they have the same outrage for those cases?

Bingo, agree 100% about their rights, or the rights that they 'should have'. They should be able to open and close when they wish, do business with who they wish, or even run their business into the ground if they wish. And I also think someone who owns a private business should be able to push away business from black folks as well, or any other race. I think it's a HUGE mistake for any business to push away paying customers, but I still think they should reserve that right. And yes, I also think that if a black couple owned a nice bakery, that they should be able to forbid white folks if they so please.

[revelarts]

Actually I didn't ask. :poke:

OK you ASSERTED it was just my opinion, and i suppose you excepted no corrective retort. well sorry bro.

To choose particular verses ignores the context of the whole passage.

Romans And Shrine Prostitution (http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html)Romans and shrine prostitution is precisely what Paul addressed in Romans 1. The ancient custom of shrine prostitution, prevalent in first century Rome, forms the historical motif of the first chapter of Romans....


OK in Romans Show me the word shrine, show me the words prostitute in Greek or English.
oh your right, they're not there.
FJ it's clear as crystal, the whole passage begins and ends as a universal indictment of all mankind and names various sins. the book's full context takes us all the way from the problem of mankind from Adam and creation to the only redemption in Jesus.
"...For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them..."

it's not SOME unrighteousness of SOME men, those in a shrines who are using temple prostitutes. that's a dishonest reading of the text inserting a specific meaning to something that has not called for it in ANYWAY.

it's worse than trying to interpret the second amendment to mean that "arms" REALLY meant ONLY 1776 ball and powered muskets and swords. period.

You know as well as I that not all Bible passages are clear on some subjects but any honest reading is clear here
""exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"

"God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."


it's clear that it's considered sin .
there's no way to honestly read that and say "it's OK" or "natural" or "right"
when it's called "indecent", "unnatural" and "error".

But if you want to say that it means something else "to you and some others", that's fine.
But i have to say that it's not an HONEST interpretation of the words in the book.



I Corinthians 6? I would suggest reviewing the original Greek and not centuries later interpretations.
'centuries later interpretations,' like 20th century pro-homosexual interpretations. i agree.

Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians all say clearly that it's sin directly. Many other passages make the same clear by oblique reference.

But there are no passages that promote it as good, NONE, or even a practice that's neutral or NOT a sin.



1. Legislation is not based on religious views of sin.
2. No. But that's what the law says.

1. Protection of people's right to live out their "religious views of sin" IS legislation. it's called the 1st amendment.
2. then the law is against the constitution and common sense.

[KarlMarx]

What the hell is happening to America? Now we are FORCED to condone activity we find objectionable on religious grounds?


If this is true, then the NAACP should be required to have Nazis and white supremacists at all of their meetings. After all, we should apply the same standard to all organizations.

Yes, this is what the Left is all about.. they're into zero sum games, meaning that in order for someone to gain their rights someone else must lose theirs... just like with private property....

[KarlMarx]

OK in Romans Show me the word shrine, show me the words prostitute in Greek or English.
oh your right, they're not there.
FJ it's clear as crystal, the whole passage begins and ends as a universal indictment of all mankind and names various sins. the book's full context takes us all the way from the problem of mankind from Adam and creation to the only redemption in Jesus.
"...For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them..."

it's not SOME unrighteousness of SOME men, those in a shrines who are using temple prostitutes. that's a dishonest reading of the text inserting a specific meaning to something that has not called for it in ANYWAY.

it's worse than trying to interpret the second amendment to mean that "arms" REALLY meant ONLY 1776 ball and powered muskets and swords. period.

You know as well as I that not all Bible passages are clear on some subjects but any honest reading is clear here
""exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"

"God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."


it's clear that it's considered sin .
there's no way to honestly read that and say "it's OK" or "natural" or "right"
when it's called "indecent", "unnatural" and "error".

But if you want to say that it means something else "to you and some others", that's fine.
But i have to say that it's not an HONEST interpretation of the words in the book.


'centuries later interpretations,' like 20th century pro-homosexual interpretations. i agree.

Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians all say clearly that it's sin directly. Many other passages make the same clear by oblique reference.

But there are no passages that promote it as good, NONE, or even a practice that's neutral or NOT a sin.



1. Protection of people's right to live out their "religious views of sin" IS legislation. it's called the 1st amendment.
2. then the law is against the constitution and common sense.


have to agree here... scripture is pretty clear on the prohibition of homosexuality. It also is prety clear that the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman as is found in Genesis 2:24

For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and the two shall be one flesh

Unless somebody is going to contort this passage to mean that "wife" could be another man... and I suppose some might try.

[fj1200]

have to agree here... scripture is pretty clear on the prohibition of homosexuality. It also is prety clear that the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman as is found in Genesis 2:24

I agree current versions with particular interpretations leaving out the entire context do lead to that view.


1. Protection of people's right to live out their "religious views of sin" IS legislation. it's called the 1st amendment.
2. then the law is against the constitution and common sense.

I think we missed something along the way...
1. We shouldn't be legislating (against gay marriage for example) based on religious views but we also should be careful in how we mandate "non-discrimination" against protected classes and its infringing on property and 1A rights.
2. That remains to be seen as the Civil Rights Act, and its identification of protected classes, have been Constitutional for decades now. As I said before maybe the ACA challenge will shed some light.

The rest of your post wasn't ignored. :)

[revelarts]

I agree current versions with particular interpretations leaving out the entire context do lead to that view...The rest of your post wasn't ignored. :)
if you still see a contextual problem then i'm not sure it wasn't ignored.:poke:



I think we missed something along the way...
1. We shouldn't be legislating (against gay marriage for example) based on religious views but we also should be careful in how we mandate "non-discrimination" against protected classes and its infringing on property and 1A rights.
2. That remains to be seen as the Civil Rights Act, and its identification of protected classes, have been Constitutional for decades now. As I said before maybe the ACA challenge will shed some light.


the current laws of marraige are based on religious and traditional views.
1 man one woman. polygamy is illegal ..sofar and so is marriage to animals or plants .. so far. and marriage to young children... as Sharia allows.

the current majority legal marriage practice IS very comfortably CHRISTIAN. what a coincedence.
today few want to acknowledge that. but it is a fact.
people want to change that because they don't like it any more. well hey i still like it. IT'S THE LAW!!! in most states still anyway. People should just STHU and obey the LAW!!!http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/poke.gif

and can i make an aside here.
I hate the term "protected class" it's a horrible legal construction.
Aren't everyone a "protected class". don't we all have rights as human beings.

if a white guy goes into a Asian store and isn't served or can't get a job because of race, aren't they legally "protected"?

'protected class' just smacks of animal farms "some animals are more equal that others" .

[Abbey Marie]

I still say it's a quite simple fix by simply stopping the baking of wedding cakes. That's really the bakeries only option, other than facing the fines, of which I don't see anyway out for them, as the discrimination act has been around forever.

Seems like a simple solution, but what if wedding cake sales are their best money maker and enable them to stay profitable? Why should they have to decide between sustaining their business or betraying their convictions?

Also, not in response to your post, but why should gayness be protected, and not religious expression? Only one of those is explicitly written into the 1st Amendment last time I checked.

[red states rule]

Seems like a simple solution, but what if wedding cake sales are their best money maker and enable them to stay profitable? Why should they have to decide between sustaining their business or betraying their convictions?

Also, not in response to your post, but why should gayness be protected, and not religious expression? Only one of those is explicitly written into the 1st Amendment last time I checked.

Because gays are willing to exchange their vote in exchange for special protection

[jimnyc]

Seems like a simple solution, but what if wedding cake sales are their best money maker and enable them to stay profitable? Why should they have to decide between sustaining their business or betraying their convictions?

Also, not in response to your post, but why should gayness be protected, and not religious expression? Only one of those is explicitly written into the 1st Amendment last time I checked.

Well, I think you already know my opinion on all of this. :) It's a hard one if they make the majority of their income off of the cakes. I think they should be able to sustain their business without betraying their beliefs. I think that since it's THEIR business, that their way of business should be first and foremost. My belief on this though is contrary to the discrimination laws. I really wish there was an answer I could give that would make all end happily for this bakery. Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative IF they MUST make the cakes in order to stay afloat. They can either make them, close shop, or face fines. I think that sucks more than anything, but that's the reality of the corner they are being placed into. Now, if ME? I would not make cakes, close up the shop, take the fines - anything other than betraying my convictions.

The odd thing is that if this bakery has say 15 employees, they would be required to accommodate an employees religious request if it fits under guidelines - but they can't follow their own beliefs. Imagine that, you come in one morning and you MUST bake a cake for an occasion you are religiously against - and you very well may be doing it while one of your employees is in the back room praying, on the time you gave him to accommodate his request.

[fj1200]

if you still see a contextual problem then i'm not sure it wasn't ignored.:poke:

I didn't say I was done with it. :slap:


the current laws of marraige are based on religious and traditional views.
1 man one woman. polygamy is illegal ..sofar and so is marriage to animals or plants .. so far. and marriage to young children... as Sharia allows.

the current majority legal marriage practice IS very comfortably CHRISTIAN. what a coincedence.
today few want to acknowledge that. but it is a fact.
people want to change that because they don't like it any more. well hey i still like it. IT'S THE LAW!!! in most states still anyway. People should just STHU and obey the LAW!!!:poke:

and can i make an aside here.
I hate the term "protected class" it's a horrible legal construction.
Aren't everyone a "protected class". don't we all have rights as human beings.

if a white guy goes into a Asian store and isn't served or can't get a job because of race, aren't they legally "protected"?

'protected class' just smacks of animal farms "some animals are more equal that others" .

"Current" is all well and good but the religious aspect is nothing to perpetuate the law over. I'm perfectly OK with accentuating the religious aspect of it by removing preferences to "straight" marriage especially at the Fed level. And you don't strike me as the "STHU and obey the LAW" kind of guy. :poke:

I don't like protected class either but it is what it is and was unfortunately necessary in the mid 60's.

[Arbo]

NO

If the baker were a Muslim he would have killed the gays -

Oh gee, I must miss the stories of Muslims in America running around murdering gays. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Oh gee, I must miss the stories of Muslims in America running around murdering gays. :laugh:

Like you ass buddy FU you edit quotes to fit your agenda

I understand trolls like you fail to grasp logic and reason

My post was




NO

If the baker were a Muslim he would have killed the gays -


as they do in many parts of the Middle East

[Arbo]

Like you ass buddy FU you edit quotes to fit your agenda

I understand trolls like you fail to grasp logic and reason

My post was

I know what your post was. But since you are too slow to figure it out, the story this thread is about, is from Colorado, which is in the United States of America, which is on the north america contenent … NOT in the middle east. Thus when it was asked if the baker was a Muslim, it would infer that he would be a Muslim in America.

Thanks for failing again. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

I know what your post was. But since you are too slow to figure it out, the story this thread is about, is from Colorado, which is in the United States of America, which is on the north america contenent … NOT in the middle east. Thus when it was asked if the baker was a Muslim, it would infer that he would be a Muslim in America.

Thanks for failing again. :laugh:

Were I RSR, I would argue that experience tells me that people will often suppress certain actions until they have a stronger position in the culture in which they live. In other words, if they had more power here, as they already do in the ME, things likely would be different.

[Arbo]

Were I RSR, I would argue that experience tells me that people will often suppress certain actions until they have a stronger position in the culture in which they live. In other words, if they had more power here, as they already do in the ME, things likely would be different.

If he were to go down that road of thought, he'd just further be diverting from the topic of the thread. We are talking about America. And Muslims are anti-gay just like Christians in America. What they are or do elsewhere is of no concern in this thread… there are a few hundred others for that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Were I RSR, I would argue that experience tells me that people will often suppress certain actions until they have a stronger position in the culture in which they live. In other words, if they had more power here, as they already do in the ME, things likely would be different. A great observation. Dead on accurate . RSR has it right and the Muslims here holding back now are just waiting for more government power and protection before they do exactly as they do everywhere else they gain population of 15% or more then they start wholesale killing of non-muslims to force culture change and an eventual government takeover. What should be noticed is the baker just refused service he did cut off their heads as would the Islamists!! That little fact is always ignored by those that try to defend the Islamists. --Tyr

[Arbo]

RSR has it right and the Muslims here holding back now are just waiting for more government power and protection before they do exactly as they do everywhere else

:lol:

Yeah, they are just dying to get busy killing gay people… Such stupidity. Of course the overall point was missed by all, but that's nothing new, is it?

[Abbey Marie]

If he were to go down that road of thought, he'd just further be diverting from the topic of the thread. We are talking about America. And Muslims are anti-gay just like Christians in America. What they are or do elsewhere is of no concern in this thread… there are a few hundred others for that.


So, here's the thing Arbo: Everyone (yes, you too) has their angle on things. Therefore, topics ebb and flow, and it's natural for conversations to go this way and that, in person or in print. We are discussing/debating here, not writing Theses.

What IS truly distracting is when someone comes into a thread to point out that another person is off topic. That is when things start to go downhill, and generally end up in the Cage. We have never, and hopefully we never will, force people to stick to strict topic confines.

You said that the Muslim point is "of no concern in this thread". If it really is of no concern, then why concern yourself with it?

[red states rule]

So, here's the thing Arbo: Everyone (yes, you too) has their angle on things. therefore, topics ebb and flow, and it's natural for conversations to go this way and that, in person or in print. We are discussing/debating here, not writing Theses.

What IS truly distracting is when someone comes into a thread to point out that another person is off topic. That is when things start to go downhill, and generally end up in the Cage. We have never, and hopefully we never will, force people to stick to strict topic confines.

You said that the Muslim point is "of no concern in this thread". If it really is of no concern, then why concern yourself with it?

Abbey we have seen first hand here in America how many Muslims treat their own wives and daughters when they break the "rules"

How many threads have been started on "honor killings"? Muslim men running over their own family members with a car, or beheading them - simply because they listen to rock & roll, refuse to go through with a pre-arranged marriage, or they date non-Muslims

Fools like Arbo are either trolls, they are truly ignorant of the threat, or they simply do not give a damn what happens in their country

[Arbo]

So, here's the thing Arbo: Everyone (yes, you too) has their angle on things. therefore, topics ebb and flow, and it's natural for conversations to go this way and that, in person or in print. We are discussing/debating here, not writing Theses.

There is a difference between ebb and flow, and what we saw here. I understand some here will continually defend their buddies here no matter how outrageous they are. So let us revisit this: it was said the baker refused them due to his religious beliefs, i then made a comment asking if he was a muslim because muslim religious beliefs are against gays, to which we see the whole 'they would kill them!!!!' nonsense. Of course, as stated again and again, we are talking about here in the USA. As of yet, I haven't seen him (or anyone else) back up with evidence that we have muslims running around in the USA killing gays. But since it isn't happening, thus there is no evidence, the shift is to "but they would if they had the power to". Utter nonsense and pathetic form when it comes to debate. It is understood there are a few here that hate every muslim and think every one is hiding around a corner just plotting to get them… but on occasion, they need to deal with reality rather than fantasy.


Abbey we have seen first hand here in America how many Muslims treat their own wives and daughters when they break the "rules"

How many threads have been started on "honor killings"? Muslim men running over their own family members with a car, or beheading them - simply because they listen to rock & roll, refuse to go through with a pre-arranged marriage, or they date non-Muslims

Fools like Arbo are either trolls, they are truly ignorant of the threat, or they simply do not give a damn what happens in their country

See Abby, here is more diversion… he has no data to support his claim that they murder gays here, he has nothing to support his claim that they will when they reach a certain level of 'power', so off he goes to the 'but they treat their wives like shit'. Unless those wives are gay, how they treat them has nothing to do with their desire to murder gays because they want a wedding cake.

So again, we see total fantasy land, and inability to stick to a topic or back up anything said.

[jimnyc]

then made a comment asking if he was a muslim because muslim religious beliefs are against gays, to which we see the whole 'they would kill them!!!!' nonsense. Of course, as stated again and again, we are talking about here in the USA.

I'm not being a dick, so chill. But it was you who brought up the Muslims, and then you get upset when others run with it and compound it? Seriously, if you read something you are tired reading a lot of, why not just pass it by? Pointing the things out, like Abbey said, serves to go off topic just as much, and adds to things equally. I know the subject of Islam obviously bugs you, based on the amount of threads that discuss the subject, but pointing out your irritation with it, or complaining about it in threads, will only keep the issue alive and in the forefront, and of course makes you a part of the party taking things off course. You complain that people "defend their buddies". But I see little difference between one speaking up in defense, and on speaking up against.

[Arbo]

I'm not being a dick, so chill. But it was you who brought up the Muslims, and then you get upset when others run with it and compound it? Seriously, if you read something you are tired reading a lot of, why not just pass it by? Pointing the things out, like Abbey said, serves to go off topic just as much, and adds to things equally. I know the subject of Islam obviously bugs you, based on the amount of threads that discuss the subject, but pointing out your irritation with it, or complaining about it in threads, will only keep the issue alive and in the forefront, and of course makes you a part of the party taking things off course. You complain that people "defend their buddies". But I see little difference between one speaking up in defense, and on speaking up against.


The comment I responded to was (to paraphrase) "they were denied due to religious beliefs". So my response was 'the baker was muslim?' because muslims religious beliefs are against gays. As has been repeated, we are talking about a store here, in the United States. So what muslims do elsewhere is irrelevant. I understand that someones 'good christian sensibilities' were 'hurt' because my response pointed out the similarity between them and a 'bad religion'.

That doesn't change the fact that as of yet, RSR's has not supported his 'murder' claim within the boarders of the United States, and has clearly deflected from that point on. A simple reality, no matter how you or anyone else doesn't like it.

[jimnyc]

The comment I responded to was (to paraphrase) "they were denied due to religious beliefs". So my response was 'the baker was muslim?' because muslims religious beliefs are against gays. As has been repeated, we are talking about a store here, in the United States. So what muslims do elsewhere is irrelevant. I understand that someones 'good christian sensibilities' were 'hurt' because my response pointed out the similarity between them and a 'bad religion'.

That doesn't change the fact that as of yet, RSR's has not supported his 'murder' claim within the boarders of the United States, and has clearly deflected from that point on. A simple reality, no matter how you or anyone else doesn't like it.

I'm not defending RSR, or anyone for that fact. I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment. I'm just saying that a lot of things are propagated due to the "back and forth". And there can't be a back and forth without 2 participants. There are a few things that come up here and there, from all kinds of members. When it does, I roll my eyes silently and move along. I'm not saying you can't reply as you did, just offering my POV. Sometimes I do as you do, sometimes I don't. As I often tell my son - pick your battles. Some wars aren't worth getting upset at or doing the back and forth. Save the energy and typing for the things that deserve it.

Carry on, I'm out, don't want to be the bad guy here!

And to put us back on topic here - gays suck, literally. :)

[Abbey Marie]

There is a difference between ebb and flow, and what we saw here. I understand some here will continually defend their buddies here no matter how outrageous they are. So let us revisit this: it was said the baker refused them due to his religious beliefs, i then made a comment asking if he was a muslim because muslim religious beliefs are against gays, to which we see the whole 'they would kill them!!!!' nonsense. Of course, as stated again and again, we are talking about here in the USA. As of yet, I haven't seen him (or anyone else) back up with evidence that we have muslims running around in the USA killing gays. But since it isn't happening, thus there is no evidence, the shift is to "but they would if they had the power to". Utter nonsense and pathetic form when it comes to debate. It is understood there are a few here that hate every muslim and think every one is hiding around a corner just plotting to get them… but on occasion, they need to deal with reality rather than fantasy.



See Abby, here is more diversion… he has no data to support his claim that they murder gays here, he has nothing to support his claim that they will when they reach a certain level of 'power', so off he goes to the 'but they treat their wives like shit'. Unless those wives are gay, how they treat them has nothing to do with their desire to murder gays because they want a wedding cake.

So again, we see total fantasy land, and inability to stick to a topic or back up anything said.

I did not even realize it was you who initially brought up Muslims, Arbo. You really have no issue here.

[Arbo]

I did not even realize it was you who initially brought up Muslims, Arbo. You really have no issue here.

Perhaps you are having trouble tracking. I won't bother repeating myself again, you'll have to go back and re-read it all yourself to catch up.

[fj1200]

:catfight:

:gay:

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps you are having trouble tracking. I won't bother repeating myself again, you'll have to go back and re-read it all yourself to catch up.


I am having no trouble tracking whatsoever. And you pointed out that you brought up Muslims yourself, thereby saving me time. In your perfect debate world, you are allowed to mention Muslims, but no one else is?

If you want to derail threads by pointing out posts that you, in your opinion, think are irksome, off-topic, stupid, or all three, I suppose you can have at it. But don't expect us to see you as correct in your assessments, or ask anyone to stop posting things that you don't like.

Now, I hope we can get back to substantive discussions.

[jimnyc]

:gay:

What a fitting smiley for this thread! You damn homophobe!!

[fj1200]

What a fitting smiley for this thread! You damn homophobe!!

But what about the other one. It fits at least some of the posts.

[Abbey Marie]

But what about the other one. It fits at least some of the posts.


The other one gives me a headache just looking at it. :laugh2:

[Arbo]

I am having no trouble tracking whatsoever. And you pointed out that you brought up Muslims yourself, thereby saving me time. In your perfect debate world, you are allowed to mention Muslims, but no one else is?

The above sentence shows you are indeed having trouble tracking, as I never even hinted at the later part of your post.

Perhaps if you actually read the written word, rather than dive into the 'make up shit' camp, you'd be better off.

So to bring it back around, under the basic idea of what America is about, a store owner should be able to deny selling to or working for, whomever they desire. No matter what religion (or lack of religion) the store owner follows. But it must be even across the board... an owner doesn't want to make cakes for gays, fine. an owner doesn't want to make cake for bible thumping hypocrits, fine. and on and on the examples can go. I am at least consistent, whereas others fluxuate depending on what the owner believes in and who it is that is being discriminated against.

Of course, that owner then can't bitch about any negative outcome on the business due to such choices. For if those that disagree with him decided they will no longer do business there, and it hurts his profits, oh well. That is a part of freedom, it goes both ways.

[jimnyc]

The above sentence shows you are indeed having trouble tracking, as I never even hinted at the later part of your post.

Perhaps if you actually read the written word, rather than dive into the 'make up shit' camp, you'd be better off.

So to bring it back around, under the basic idea of what America is about, a store owner should be able to deny selling to or working for, whomever they desire. No matter what religion (or lack of religion) the store owner follows. But it must be even across the board... an owner doesn't want to make cakes for gays, fine. an owner doesn't want to make cake for bible thumping hypocrits, fine. and on and on the examples can go. I am at least consistent, whereas others fluxuate depending on what the owner believes in and who it is that is being discriminated against.

Of course, that owner then can't bitch about any negative outcome on the business due to such choices. For if those that disagree with him decided they will no longer do business there, and it hurts his profits, oh well. That is a part of freedom, it goes both ways.

I think those who think businesses should be free to operate in the manner in which THEY see fit, would agree that this should be the same regardless of whether the owner is white, black, chinese, muslim, christian.... A business is a business, and if private, I think anyone who owns said business, should be free to do business with who they wish, and also not do business with anyone they don't want to. It's their business, and it's theirs to succeed and theirs to fail, if that's what they choose.

As for the point Abbey is trying to make - I think the muslim thing never enters this thread, but it did. And I think you mentioned something about the thread and that being off topic, and that there are a few hundred other threads in where they can discuss that. But I don't think anyone does bring it up if you didn't already. Anyway, again, not a complaint but a factual version of how I saw it. I'd rather we let it go now, as this is another example that Abbey was referring to - the discussion turns a tad, some point at the other about OT posts, and then it snowballs and the thread takes a turn from the topic to who is off topic, who isn't and who started it.

[aboutime]

What a fitting smiley for this thread! You damn homophobe!!



Jim. Do you happen to have a 'smiley' for fj that shows a "light on...in the closet"????

[red states rule]

I am having no trouble tracking whatsoever. And you pointed out that you brought up Muslims yourself, thereby saving me time. In your perfect debate world, you are allowed to mention Muslims, but no one else is?

If you want to derail threads by pointing out posts that you, in your opinion, think are irksome, off-topic, stupid, or all three, I suppose you can have at it. But don't expect us to see you as correct in your assessments, or ask anyone to stop posting things that you don't like.

Now, I hope we can get back to substantive discussions.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abbey again.

Arbo has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion Abbey