It might take a long time for his version of Islam to happen . . . but we in the West can hope. It is not only a greatly reformed version, he calls for it to recognize the separation of church (mosque) and state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8deTppcltM

has he been assassinated yet?

has he been assassinated yet?

Not yet. He does get a lot of death threats.

It would be nice to see the religious right back off and accept the separation of church and state as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be nice to see the religious right back off and accept the separation of church and state as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be nice if the leftists politicians and judges would back off of trampling on the First and Second Amendments.

What does the religious right do to mess with the so-called separation of church and state?

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs and push their holy agenda and encourage stupid holy wars and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...
that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs and push their holy agenda and encourage stupid holy wars and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...
that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs "

Oh my god, who the hell do they think they are, to vote in accordance with their religiously-informed consciences?

"encourage stupid holy wars "

Are you talking about the Crusades?

"Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion" Which is precisely what I want, because for the last 8 years, we had a jerk who actively attacked Christianity. When you try to tell the Little Sisters Of The Poor that they have to pay for abortions and birth control, you are somebody who hates the first amendment.

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs

So would you be willing to stop voting for those who represent your beliefs?

and push their holy agenda

And should every one else also have no agenda?

and encourage stupid holy wars

Which holy wars are the Christian right encouraging. And which party or form of government does not engage in wars?

and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...

Which personal freedoms of whom have the Christian right oppressed?

Abortion? Abortion is philosophically repugnant to Christians and other religions, left or right, to various atheists, to people of all stripes. There is a great debate on whether abortion denies the right to life, and, like all political issues, can be decided at the ballot box. If voting is oppression, then we all oppress each other.

Not baking a gay cake? That does not oppress the right of gays to have a gay cake. Quite the opposite, forcing some to bake a cake they don't want to bake is oppressing many of the bakers' rights.

that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet it is imposing on religious rights.

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet it is imposing on religious rights.

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.
A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.
Yeah, but her emails......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes. No matter who wanted to buy such cakes. When the government can force you to produce something you don't want to produce, that government is acting tyrannically. And those who speak of "rights" and characterize such things as the right to demand or force someone to make something that person does not want to make, those people have a very cynical and limited notion of what a "right" is.

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes.
Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

That's the reason that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. It is "odd" to non-believers. If being "odd" was a crime, there are times that you'd be breaking the law.

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Obama never acted on behalf of Christians who didn’t want to participate in gay weddings. The little sisters of the poor had to take obama to the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Who does the EEOC work for?

The happy gay couple couldn’t get another baker? There were no other bakeries?

And again, the little sisters of the poor successfully sued obama at the Supreme Court, when El Deuce tried to force Catholic nuns to pay for birth control and abortions. Perfectly in keeping with the second amendment! Pass no law which restricts the free exercise of religion, whatever.

The constitution was given a stay of execution as soon as that horses ass left the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes. No matter who wanted to buy such cakes. When the government can force you to produce something you don't want to produce, that government is acting tyrannically. And those who speak of "rights" and characterize such things as the right to demand or force someone to make something that person does not want to make, those people have a very cynical and limited notion of what a "right" is.

Constitution, shmonstitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the reason that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. It is "odd" to non-believers. If being "odd" was a crime, there are times that you'd be breaking the law.
No, that's why we have Civil Rights and Equal Protection. Otherwise you'd have people claiming any religious exemption for anything.

And you know this.

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”

:rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”

:rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Irony here is that most religions are really based on love...it's the original meaning of belief in this context.

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees.

The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.



Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

Can anyone describe how this cake was gay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no cake

Can anyone describe how this cake was gay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://apocalypsecakes.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gaywedding.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can anyone describe how this cake was gay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It only wanted to have sex with cakes that had the same genitalia as it.

Irony here is that most religions are really based on love...it's the original meaning of belief in this context.

What's love got to do with it?

No, that's why we have Civil Rights and Equal Protection. Otherwise you'd have people claiming any religious exemption for anything.

And you know this.

The Muslim truckers refused to do their stated job, for religious reasons. The owners of the company were not allowed to punish them.

It's the Christians in this case who are being denied equal protection. This is why the Little Sisters prevailed at the Supreme Court, over Obama, who tried to deny them their protected rights.

Read the freedom of religion clause, and tell me how you can conclude anything other than telling the happy couple to find another baker. If Muslim truckers can refuse to transport things that violate their religion and not be subject to punishment, then the Little Sisters can say that they aren't providing birth control and abortions.

The Bill Of Rights applies, even when liberals don't particularly like it.

There is a Christian baker case at the Supreme Court right now. Thank God for Gorsuch.

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”

:rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the sibling to the bumper sticker that says "If your opinion requires hating Christians, find new one."

I do t hate Christians at all. I just disagree with the behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, that's why we have Civil Rights and Equal Protection. Otherwise you'd have people claiming any religious exemption for anything.

And you know this.

How is that a logical response to my saying "That's the reason that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. It is "odd" [your characterization of the Baker's beliefs] to non-believers. If being "odd" was a crime, there are times that you'd be breaking the law."

Are you saying that the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom violates Civil Rights and Equal Protection? That is an "odd" concept.

The First Amendment IS a Civil Right, and further it protects Natural Rights. And, as I've said several times in other posts, someone's rights cannot deny others of their rights. There is no natural, nor should there be a civil, right to demand that someone must bake a certain kind of cake against their will. And refusing to bake such a cake does not deny anyone's civil or natural right to have that kind of cake. Buying a product requires seeking someone who sells it. Demanding that someone should produce a product they don't make is not a right. Not baking the kind of cake that you choose not to make does not deny someone from searching for a place that does make that product. And forcing someone to bake something against his will, IS trespassing that person's civil and natural right.

So Equal Protection protects BOTH parties rights. Desiring a product is a right. Not wishing to produce a product is a right. Forcing the right to have a product against the right not to make such product, is not equal protection. It is one-sided coercion.

Not baking a cake because that would trespass one's religious beliefs is certainly not "claiming any religious exemption for anything", as you put it. It is practicing a constitutional right which does not negate anyone else's right. And being "odd" is not a crime, as long as it doesn't deny others of the right to be "odd."

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do t hate Christians at all. I just disagree with the behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you saying that "hate" is peculiar to Christians. It certainly isn't a Christian tenet. Christ did not say hate your enemy. On the other hand, being human, Christians are as prone to that "sin" as anybody else. They are certainly not MORE prone to hate than others

So if you disagree with the behavior of some Christians when they hate, are you singling them out, and therefor not disagreeing with EVERBODY ELSE when they hate?

Now if it's just a matter, with you, that certain Christian beliefs are hateful, rather than being articles of faith that are not intended to "hate," that would be an unjust opinion--in my opinion. But if a bumper sticker says it's hate, then it must be so. After all, we know that bumper stickers are the essence of truth.

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the baker was informed that the cake was for a gay wedding, that was tantamount to asking the baker to participate in a wedding that was against his religion--regardless of what the cake looked like. Just asking for a wedding cake does not create a context that trespasses religious beliefs unless the religion bans weddings. That is why the gays specified what the cake was for. To create that context so that the baker could be sued if, as they expected, he refused.

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the Muslim trucker case, Obama’s EEOC argued that employees at work can not be forced to act in any way that goes against their religion. The Christian baker is being asked to do the same exact thing, to abandon a specific tenet of his faith because he is at work.

Neither you nor I agree with the bakers pisition on gay marriage. That doesn’t mean that the first amendment doesn’t apply to him. That’s the beauty of the constitution, it doesn’t only apply when one side or the other agrees.

Like it or not, freedom of speech means that the an artist can hang a painting of Christ covered in manure. Like it or not, freedom of the press means that Rachael Maddow can go on the air and say things I despise. Like it or not, freedom of assembly means that the klan can hold a peaceful rally. And like it or not, freedom of religion means that people cannot be forced to act against their religion, even when they happen to be at work.

It’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you agree with the underlying principle. The test, is whether or not you support it when you don’t like the right being sought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do t hate Christians at all. I just disagree with the behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So only those you agree with, are protected by the Bill Of Rights.

If obamas EEOC said that Muslim truckers cannot be forced to abandon any principles of their religion at work, why aren’t Christian bakers afforded that same exact right?

THAT is the discrimination- giving freedom of religion to Muslim truckers and not to Christian bakers.

The baker isn’t forcing his views on anyone. He’s asking to be left alone so he can act on his religiously-informed conscience. It is the gay rights community that is attempting to force their agenda on the Christian. Not the other way around.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The baker isn’t forcing his views on anyone.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

actually...he has previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce.

soooo....I think he's probably also bracing for law suits from witches and pumpkins, unhappy couples and guys with dirty minds

actually...he has previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce.

soooo....I think he's probably also bracing for law suits from witches and pumpkins, unhappy couples and guys with dirty minds

and yet the liberals pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded and tolerant, and they see zero hypocrisy when they attack Christians for having religiously-informed convictions that are different from their own.

I was at three weddings this summer I'm so glad that the cake bakers blessed each of those weddings. Too bad the chef at Woolworths didn't think of claiming his hamburger making was artistic 50 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was at three weddings this summer I'm so glad that the cake bakers blessed each of those weddings. Too bad the chef at Woolworths didn't think of claiming his hamburger making was artistic 50 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

50 years ago, an owner of a restaurant could have run his business in accordance with his religion without being convicted of denying someone else's civil rights.

I was at three weddings this summer I'm so glad that the cake bakers blessed each of those weddings. Too bad the chef at Woolworths didn't think of claiming his hamburger making was artistic 50 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, I don't agree with their position either. But if Muslim truck drivers can refuse to transport alcohol, why can't Christian bakers refuse not to participate in a gay wedding? What's the difference?

Bashing them is very easy. Try telling us why the First Amendment doesn't apply to them...

50 years ago, an owner of a restaurant could have run his business in accordance with his religion without being convicted of denying someone else's civil rights.

50 years ago, it wasn't considered controversial to say "if you have a wee-wee, you go to the men's room".

Obama decide he got to pick and choose who the Bill Rights applied to, and who it didn't apply to. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

When the baker was informed that the cake was for a gay wedding, that was tantamount to asking the baker to participate in a wedding that was against his religion--regardless of what the cake looked like. Just asking for a wedding cake does not create a context that trespasses religious beliefs unless the religion bans weddings. That is why the gays specified what the cake was for. To create that context so that the baker could be sued if, as they expected, he refused.

First of all, slipknot said it was because of all of the "pro-gay stuff" they wanted on the cake. They never discussed the details of what the cake would say or look like. He didn't reject them based on the design of the cake, but once he figured out they are gay, he refused to make it.

The way Colorado law is written, he broke the law. He could have refused to make certain designs or phrases. He cannot refuse to sell them a cake he would sell to a straight couple.

actually...he has previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce.

soooo....I think he's probably also bracing for law suits from witches and pumpkins, unhappy couples and guys with dirty minds

Red herring. See above post. He can't refuse to sell them a cake that he would sell to a straight couple. They never asked him to do that.

Red herring. See above post. He can't refuse to sell them a cake that he would sell to a straight couple. They never asked him to do that.

why would a straight couple want a gay wedding cake?

nothing I've read indicated he straight out refused to sell them a cake...he apparently refused to decorate a cake for celebrating a gay wedding...he's apparently never refused to sell other items in his shop to anyone...just did not want to be contracted to decorate a wedding cake for a gay marriage...nor Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, or a cake celebrating a divorce

why would a straight couple want a gay wedding cake?

nothing I've read indicated he straight out refused to sell them a cake...he apparently refused to decorate a cake for celebrating a gay wedding...he's apparently never refused to sell other items in his shop to anyone...just did not want to be contracted to decorate a wedding cake for a gay marriage...nor Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, or a cake celebrating a divorce

Bingo

Red herring. See above post. He can't refuse to sell them a cake that he would sell to a straight couple. They never asked him to do that.

This is what he stated, under oath, to the supreme court on Tuesday

“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion."

The way Colorado law is written, he broke the law. He could have refused to make certain designs or phrases. He cannot refuse to sell them a cake he would sell to a straight couple.

And that is why a Jewish Baker could refuse to put pro-nazi wording on a cake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting comment from Justice Kennedy during arguments

“Tolerance is essential in a free society,” he said. But, he continued, “It seems to me that the state in its position here has neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs.”

This is what he stated, under oath, to the supreme court on Tuesday

“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion."

I Believe by quote-unquote custom cake he means a wedding cake. Has nothing to do with the wording. He would sell them cupcakes brownies excetera but not a wedding cake regardless if they wanted wording on it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why would a straight couple want a gay wedding cake?


They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored or say gay people are the best or have two men holding hands on it. He could reject that.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.
I wonder if he realized that gay couples already eat his cakes all the time at weddings. I also wonder how many cakes he's made for same sex weddings that were brokered by wedding planners and he had no idea.

He seems personally concerned as to how his talents are used, which I would assume to mean he puts love into his cakes to celebrate the love of a union.

Perhaps he should focus less on the sex and more on the love.

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored or say gay people are the best or have two men holding hands on it. He could reject that.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.
Based on Colorado law, he cannot refuse to bake a cake just because it will be used at a gay wedding.

But according to the first amendment to the us constitution, which trumps Colorado law, he absolutely can. Congress shall pass no law which interferes with the free exercise of religion.

If he is an atheist who just hates gays, the constitution doesn’t afford him the right to refuse. But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he is an atheist who just hates gays, the constitution doesn’t afford him the right to refuse. But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right.
Is that a choice of his or was he just born that way?

I wonder

Perhaps he should focus less on the sex and more on the love.

Perhaps you should read the first amendment. It doesn’t say that freedom of religion only applies to people who, according to you, are sufficiently focused on love.

I am in favor of gay marriage. I’m also in favor of upholding the constitution. It’s not mutually exclusive.

Maybe the gay couple could practice the tolerance they expect from others, and use another baker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that a choice of his or was he just born that way?

His religious beliefs? They are a choice. And the constitution says he has the right to act according to that choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument, Mr. Phillips now emphasizes his other First Amendment rights — freedom of speech and expression. His cakes are his artistic expression, he says, and he should not be forced to express ideas to which he is opposed.



Mr. Phillips makes a good case that he is an artist. So might many others who sell the fruits of their labor to those celebrating a wedding. But that doesn’t give any of them the right to refuse service to people protected under an anti-discrimination law. If the couple had asked Mr. Phillips to write a message on their cake endorsing same-sex marriage and he had been punished for refusing, he would have a more plausible First Amendment claim, since he wouldn’t write that for anyone. But Colorado’s law doesn’t compel Mr. Phillips, or any proprietor, to say anything they don’t want to say, or to endorse any specific message. It requires only that they treat all customers equally.

Mr. Phillips claims he already does this. He’s happy to sell any of his pre-made products to gay people, he says, or to bake them a custom cake for another occasion. What he won’t do is custom-bake anything intended for use in a same-sex wedding. As the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said in ruling for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig, that’s a distinction without a difference. Since only gay people have same-sex weddings, he’s discriminating against gay people.

Some free-speech advocates argue that this case is simply a matter of deciding which sorts of expression merit First Amendment protection and which do not. Cake bakers may be a close call, but what about photographers? Florists? Caterers? Calligraphers? In fact, cases like these have already been brought around the country. If the justices rule for Mr. Phillips, they will be hard-pressed to find a clear limiting principle. And that would render public-accommodations laws like Colorado’s effectively meaningless.

This, of course, is precisely the objective of the rear-guard action undertaken by religious objectors who, thwarted in their efforts to prevent gay couples from enjoying the rights and benefits that flow from marriage, are now invoking their own constitutional rights to avoid treating those same couples equally in the marketplace

Text of the first amendment, emphasis added by me...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

How is this not the end of the argument? This was the basis for Obama's EEOC saying that Muslim truckers could not be forced to transport alcohol. It was the Supreme Court's basis for ruling against Obama who wanted to tell Christian business owners that they had to provide birth control and abortions.

The Christian baker is being discriminated against, because liberals don't happen to agree with the religious principle he wishes to act upon.

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument,

Why is the religious freedom argument weak, exactly?

Is it because he was willing to sell them a pre-made cake for use at a gay wedding, but not make another cake? That would seem to weaken his case I guess...I didn't know he was willing to give them an already made cake.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored .

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says. "We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

you've lost a lot on your fastball

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

Nope. As Obama's EEOC lawsuit on behalf of Muslim truck drivers said, we need to allow religious folks to maintain their convictions, where reasonable alternative accommodations are possible. Were there no other bakers?

When the Obama administration sued on behalf of the Muslim truck drivers, I'll bet you $5 that you weren't concerned that it would lead to human sacrifices. You only raise the red flag, when people you don't agree with, seek the same protections.

Try making that wrong.

decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).

I'm beginning to wonder if they are really gay. C'mon Teal and Red....talk about clashing. They should know better :hihi:

, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

Sure. Because of liberal tolerance and respect and inclusion. Right?

No irony there, nope.

you've lost a lot on your fastball

Trump has had that effect on a lot of liberals.

Why is the religious freedom argument weak, exactly?

Is it because he was willing to sell them a pre-made cake for use at a gay wedding, but not make another cake? That would seem to weaken his case I guess...I didn't know he was willing to give them an already made cake.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/same-sex-marriage-cake-first-amendment.html\

As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s. In 1968, a few years after the Civil Rights Act passed, the court ruled unanimously against the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain who invoked his religious freedom to refuse to serve black people. The act “contravenes the will of God,” he claimed. The court called that argument “patently frivolous.”

That was the paragraph above the one I started quoting. He is argueing more on the freedom of speach than a religious one.

I think all of his wedding cakes where considered "custom" cakes. He would sell them cup cakes or pies - same as everyone else.

you've lost a lot on your fastball

More like an eephus pitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/same-sex-marriage-cake-first-amendment.html\

As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s. In 1968, a few years after the Civil Rights Act passed, the court ruled unanimously against the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain who invoked his religious freedom to refuse to serve black people. The act “contravenes the will of God,” he claimed. The court called that argument “patently frivolous.”

That was the paragraph above the one I started quoting. He is argueing more on the freedom of speach than a religious one.

I think all of his wedding cakes where considered "custom" cakes. He would sell them cup cakes or pies - same as everyone else.

"As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s"

I don't see that law as "neutral", it forces someone to abandon their beliefs, and for no good reason, assuming there are other bakers nearby.

It's going to bean interesting decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niCiKpgeRYo

Some comic levity.

But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

"The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. " https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html

“We went in with a bunch of ideas,” said Mullins, 33. “But [Phillips] came in, asked who the cake was for and then he said he wouldn’t make a cake for us. We were shocked and mortified and got up and left.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-religion-gays-20170912-story.html

But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

I Believe by quote-unquote custom cake he means a wedding cake. Has nothing to do with the wording. He would sell them cupcakes brownies excetera but not a wedding cake regardless if they wanted wording on it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His religion would not want Mr. Phillips to deny gays, or anyone else, their right to eat. Sinners are to be fed as well as the faithful. Participating in their right to eat would not be prohibited by his religion, it might even be encouraged by it. But when the food is used to celebrate what is forbidden by his religion, he feels compelled not to participate in what is forbidden. That position applies to all of his customers regardless of their sexual orientation. Straights who want to buy any of his goods to celebrate some festivity that his religion condemns, presumably, would also be rejected.

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

I would have to read the details of the ruling. One inherent difference is that one case apparently involves employees and the other involves a business owner.

I imagine the questions revolved around the burden placed on the business to use other drivers, but I am just guessing.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?
What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

What's lost in all this about the bakery is that potential customers with any kind of clear reasoning would have taken their business elsewhere if they found the bakery not conducive to their request. Something about a free market and decisions. Will be interesting to see how the SC rules. With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.
I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

Constitutionally, I really don't see that it matters. The bill of rights doesn't say the freedoms only apply when it's sufficiently convenient.

These are deeply held beliefs. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't genuine and sacred to these people.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution, the right to have a cake at your wedding. I do see the guaranteed right to exercise your religion as you see fit.

And I googled bakeries in Lakewood Colorado (where the bakery in question is), there's quite a selection. So in this case, it would have been easy (and dare I say, tolerant??) for the gay couple to leave this poor man alone and simply go elsewhere. But that's not what liberals tend to do when they don't get their way.

Because as much as the left (especially on this issue) claims that it's about "live and let live", that notion only applies to their side. They demand tolerance, but show none to others. They are the ones, not the Christians, forcing their beliefs on others. That cannot be denied. This baker isn't trying to outlaw gay marriage, he's trying to practice his religion as he sees it.

We need to stop acting as if we have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument, Mr. Phillips now emphasizes his other First Amendment rights — freedom of speech and expression. His cakes are his artistic expression, he says, and he should not be forced to express ideas to which he is opposed.

I've thought, from the beginning of this, that speech rights and property rights were just as strong an argument as his religious right.

Mr. Phillips makes a good case that he is an artist. So might many others who sell the fruits of their labor to those celebrating a wedding. But that doesn’t give any of them the right to refuse service to people protected under an anti-discrimination law. If the couple had asked Mr. Phillips to write a message on their cake endorsing same-sex marriage and he had been punished for refusing, he would have a more plausible First Amendment claim, since he wouldn’t write that for anyone. But Colorado’s law doesn’t compel Mr. Phillips, or any proprietor, to say anything they don’t want to say, or to endorse any specific message. It requires only that they treat all customers equally.

"Equally" is a tricky word. "Equally" does not mean exactly the same. If Mr. Phillips applies his religious faith to all customers, he is treating them all equally, but not necessarily treating all of them in exactly the same manner or with the same outcome.

Mr. Phillips claims he already does this. He’s happy to sell any of his pre-made products to gay people, he says, or to bake them a custom cake for another occasion.

None of his pre-made products, other than wedding cakes, were baked with any notion that they inherently were related to any principle of faith, other than the right to eat.

What he won’t do is custom-bake anything intended for use in a same-sex wedding. As the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said in ruling for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig, that’s a distinction without a difference. Since only gay people have same-sex weddings, he’s discriminating against gay people.

It is not a distinction without a difference. There is a difference between baking a product which specifically applies to a principal of faith, such as marriage, as is a wedding cake, and baking a product that does not specifically apply to that principle, such as donuts or cookies. And, more meaningful, beyond that, there is the distinction that none of his pre-made products were baked specifically for a celebration that is counter to his faith. To custom make, on the other hand, any product with the specific intent to trespass his religious tenets would be an abrogation of his faith. There is a distinction between baking a product intended for general use and baking a product for a specific use. How a customer uses a product is not on the baker. What the baker intends the product to be used for is on the baker.

Some free-speech advocates argue that this case is simply a matter of deciding which sorts of expression merit First Amendment protection and which do not. Cake bakers may be a close call, but what about photographers? Florists? Caterers? Calligraphers? In fact, cases like these have already been brought around the country. If the justices rule for Mr. Phillips, they will be hard-pressed to find a clear limiting principle. And that would render public-accommodations laws like Colorado’s effectively meaningless.

If the Court rules against Mr. Phillips, the limiting principles against government overreach in the Constitution, especially in the First Amendment, will have been breached. Freedom of religion and Freedom of speech were meant to be freedoms held within society, not freedom in some sequestered place, out of public intercourse. Also the right to property will be further constrained than it already is.

Equality before the law will be further reduced to equality of outcome.

This, of course, is precisely the objective of the rear-guard action undertaken by religious objectors who, thwarted in their efforts to prevent gay couples from enjoying the rights and benefits that flow from marriage, are now invoking their own constitutional rights to avoid treating those same couples equally in the marketplace

There's that tricky word "equally" again. What is equality in the marketplace? Isn't equality the antithesis of a market . . . of a free market? Competition, lower prices here than there, porn here, bibles there, open mon-fri 9-5, open 24/7, Italian here, Chinese there. You go to the place that sells what you want when you want it. Going to a porn video store and demanding they sell you The Passion of Christ is not exercising equality. Nor is going to a general book store which does not stock bibles and demanding it sells you one. Going to a Christian baker and demanding he sell you a cake for a gay wedding--now THAT'S equality.

Precisely the objective of the vanguard action undertaken by Progressive militants is to undermine our constitutional government, dispense with so-called outdated 18th century notions of individual freedom and classical liberalism. And to replace that with a Post-Modern, Marxian one size fits all collective equality under the false notion of diversity.

I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of. The same principle applies to Christian photographers, florists, restaurant owners, whatever.

You can not be forced to abandon your religion at work. The Muslim truck driver case makes that clear, as does the Hobby Lobby case and the Little Sisters Of The Poor case.

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

But if he refuses to make a penis cake for anyone who might enter his shop, he isn't discriminating against anyone. In this case, he is treating one class of customers very differently. If his basis for doing so is bigotry, that's illegal. If his basis for doing so is religion, the constitution protects that. It's sort of a specific kind of discrimination, that we have to tolerate if we pretend that the constitution means anything. If it only applies when everyone agrees, we don't need it.

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of.
Actually it's all about the cake. The baker doesn't want to go through the artistic effort of making a cake he knows will be used for a same sex wedding...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

When he has no issue with some pre-made cupcakes being used for god knows what because he doesn't have a spiritual/artistic attachment to those baked goods any longer. He has let go.

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

he wasn't...this is a quote from Dave Mullins the day after the incident

The couple has now "decided to go to the gayest cake shop we could think of. We went to Le Bakery Sensual and had a great experience," Mullins says. "They made us feel great, and no one batted an eye. When we told them what had happened, more than a few eyebrows went up."

...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

.

I don't think it was.. "Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October."

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to this reality during oral arguments. At the time that Jack Phillips declined to bake a same-sex wedding cake, Colorado wouldn’t even recognize — let alone issue — same-sex marriage licenses. So the same-sex couple couldn’t get the state of Colorado to recognize their relationship as a marriage. “And yet when he goes to this bake shop, and he says I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won’t do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he’s created a grave wrong,” Alito stated. “How does that all that fit together?”

I don't think it was.. "Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October."
Correct, looks like they were just ahead of the Colorado change in law. Not sure it really matters though. You still can't discriminate on sexuality regardless of the same sex union.

Correct, looks like they were just ahead of the Colorado change in law. Not sure it really matters though. You still can't discriminate on sexuality regardless of the same sex union.

It wasn't on the grounds of sexuality. It was on the grounds of religion. He was willing to sell his pre-made cakes to them regardless of their sexuality. It wasn't about their sexuality, it was about his religion. He wasn't refusing to serve them, he was refusing to bake a cake which was going to be used to celebrate something contrary to his religion. Had the couple been of a different sexuality, and they wanted the baker to create a product that contradicted what he religiously believed, he could have, on those religious, not "sexuality", beliefs, refused the service.

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple. He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't refusing to serve them, he was refusing to bake a cake which was going to be used to celebrate something contrary to his religion.

The service they asked for was for him to bake a cake- a service he provides to others in his business. It is reasonable for him to refuse certain aspects of cake design.

It is discriminatory to refuse the service of baking the cake because of the association between where/when it is eaten and the clients' sexuality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

ml[/url] it would be interesting to see a link to where he got that quote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple.

A straight couple's wedding, as such, would not desecrate his religion's view of marriage.

What if the straight couple said they wanted a cake or some donuts made for the purpose of feeding the rats in their ally, or maybe to feed their beloved cat. They could be exactly the same donuts or cake in appearance and ingredients as those on the bakers pre-baked shelf, but they didn't want those ready in stock, rather they wanted some specially made up for the purpose. Would the baker not be allowed to refuse such a request?

If the straight couple said they wanted cakes or cookies to enliven their orgy that evening, not just to eat but to place them in erogenous orifices. Would the baker be allowed to refuse to sell his wares for such purposes?

Would the baker not be allowed to refuse his wares on the basis for which they were to be used? Given that the pre-made items in stock were not baked with the intention that they would be used in ways that his religion prohibited, it would not be his sin but the consumer's sin for the purpose in which they were used. But if the baker was asked, specifically, to bake goods for a purpose which his religion forbad, by baking explicitly for that purpose, he would be intentionally participating, and so be personally complicit in the sin.

Sexuality need not be the cause in any of the above examples.

He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. The scope of those beliefs would in some cases involve straight couples as well.

And if, as you say, the court would not likely have entertained the case if certain phrases or designs were requested, then that would be the "difference without a distinction." If the phrases or designs were intended to celebrate gay marriage, then the cake would be celebrating gay marriage, which the cake would do without the phrases and designs if it were intended to be used for a gay marriage. The purpose and use for which the cake is made, not its particular design, is what makes the baker intentionally complicit in a sacrilegious ceremony.

His pre-baked goods were not made with those intentions. If he is required to sell whatever he has made and displayed to all comers, he has no control of how his goods are used once they leave the store. But he does have the volition not to make those goods in the first place. But if he makes them with the intention that they be used for unholy purposes, then he is complicit in those purposes and shares the sin.

That may sound silly or "odd" to a non-believer, but to a devout faithful it is religious worship.

The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple. He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple"

One can make a compelling case, that the first amendment says he can, as long as his refusal to do so, is based on religion. At least 3 SC justices will say he can (probably).

When Obama's EEOC argued that Muslim truck drivers could not be forced to abandon their religion, the EEOC didn't say "unless anyone is offended, in which case they can be forced to abandon their religion."

It is discriminatory to refuse the service of baking the cake because of the association between where/when it is eaten and the clients' sexuality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is interesting how those who claim that the First Amendment or other rights derived from the structure of the Constitution are not absolute, yet then claim an absoluteness to various legal interpretations of those Amendments and rights.

As I have said several times in other threads, constitutional rights cannot contradict themselves. They work in concordance with each other. The right of free association, and the right to freely dispose of or use personal property cannot negate another's right to the same.

Granted that a seller of property cannot, without contractual agreement, prohibit how the buyer uses that property once it is paid for, nor prohibit with whom the buyer associates when using his product once it is paid for. But it is also the right of the seller not to sell, and also the right of the seller to associate with whom he chooses. Neither, in either case, is denying the other's "rights." If one or the other is forced to deny his own right to satisfy the other's desire, that is tyranny, not a case of constitutional property rights, nor an instance of freedom of association, certainly not a support, in this case, of religious freedom.

it would be interesting to see a link to where he got that quote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kelsey Whipple from Westword.com in Denver published a sympathetic article the day after the incident which included several quotes from the aggrieved....

http://www.westword.com/restaurants/masterpiece-cakeshop-refuses-to-bake-a-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-5727921

Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. .

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I have said, over and over, rights must conform and be in concordance, in ultimate agreement, with all other rights. Those are the only limitations on rights. They are limited by their encroachment on other rights.

When sexual rights encroach on other rights, there must be a concordance of those rights. Sexual rights are not absolute against other rights. The right to sexuality does not trump all other rights. You cannot force your sexuality on someone who wants no part of it.

The reasons for resisting someone's sexuality are various and numerous. One of those reasons is religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs may range from celibacy, to premarital sex, and to marriage.

Sexuality, in and of itself, is a personal right. But the rights of others not to participate in your sexuality must not be abridged so long as it does not curtail your right to your personal sexuality. The right not to participate in your sexuality because of religious beliefs should not be abridged if it does not curtail your sexual rights. Not materially, nor otherwise, participating in your marriage because of religious views does not prohibit you from marrying or from celebrating your marriage, or from practicing your sexuality.

actually...he has previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce.

soooo....I think he's probably also bracing for law suits from witches and pumpkins, unhappy couples and guys with dirty minds

he does not bake create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce. to all customers !!!

not just gay one's.. please present the whole story

defenders of this behavior are mostly the same anti government crowd they know the constitution better than you crowd the my religion is better than you crowd and ray more and Trump never assaulted anyone crowd and the i'll never side with someone who they i thinks a liberal crowd reguardless of the evidence or behavior or lie spoken by anyone

and claim they are objective and love MAGA

Correct, looks like they were just ahead of the Colorado change in law.



wrong again...and it does matter because at the time the State that he operated his business in didn't even recognize same sex marriage but you seem to think he should have been forced to

the law in Colorado didn't change till July 2014....the incident was July 2012...and at that time Colorado not only would not recognize same sex marriage but as recently 2006 voters had voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman...two years later things changed in Colorado

Colorado Amendment 43 was a referendum approved by the voters in 2006 that added a new section to Article II of the Colorado Constitution to define marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman. It passed with 56% of the vote.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014.

he does not bake create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce. to all customers !!!

not just gay one's.. please present the whole story

if you rewrite that in decipherable English I will try...

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, that religious issues of a sexual nature are still protected. The SC ruled that the ObamaCare laws that mandated that Christian business owners pay for birth control and abortion-like procedures, were unconstitutional.

I

defenders of this behavior are mostly the same anti government crowd they know the constitution better than you crowd the my religion is better than you crowd and ray more and Trump never assaulted anyone crowd and the i'll never side with someone who they i thinks a liberal crowd reguardless of the evidence or behavior or lie spoken by anyone

and claim they are objective and love MAGA

Read the text of the first amendment, and tell us why it doesn't apply here. It's so easy to label this guy a bigot. It's a lot harder to tell me why the first amendment doesn't apply.

Then there's the Obama government's argument in the case of Muslim truck drivers. The federal government said that if reasonable accommodations can be made, then people at work cannot be forced to abandon their religious beliefs. In this case, there are other bakeries nearby, which were happy to provide the service. How is that not a reasonable alternative?

There's nothing easier than insulting this guy. That's not the point. T

WDMSO, do you think that the Bill Of Rights only applies to those sympathetic to liberals?

"he my religion is better than you crowd"

Who the hell is saying that here?

ALL you have is insults. Nothing even remotely pertinent to the Bill Of Rights, which is all that matters. I don't agree with the baker on this issue. But obviously the text of the First Amendment, and the feds' argument in the Muslim trucker case, make it clear he has this right.

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".


You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.
He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

Because the text of the first amendment, and how that has been interpreted, is all that matters. You can go on and on about how bigoted and close minded the guy is, and it's worth having that discussion on the issue of gay marriage (the liberals convinced me that gay marriage is something I should support).

But if the question is whether or not the baker has this right, all that matters is that sentence in the bill of rights. Your opinions of what a jerk this guy is (and he may be a jerk), mean absolutely nothing to the question of whether or not he has the legal right to do it.

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point. If you have legal decisions to suggest that Americans must forfeit their religious freedom to avoid hurting the feelings of others, please share. I mean that sincerely, that wasn't a wise-ass comment.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

At the time the First Amendment was drafted, it applied to the federal government. It now still applies to the federal government but also to the states.

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

If you believe in the absolutism .....



who are the absolutists now?

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

It was done by the amendment process which the Founders put in the Constitution. It wasn't a matter of someone later just negated the Founders will.

And the First Amendment rights were not taken away. They were made stronger and more expansive by applying them to the states.

Freedom of speech (now referred to as expression) and the free exercise of religion were meant to be freedoms practiced in the public, as well as the private, square. So there must be accommodations for those freedoms and others when they conflict.

If gay couple has right to buy whatever a baker sells, does the baker have a right not to sell certain products? Obviously, he has that right. He doesn't have to bake or sell Middle Eastern pastries, for instance. Would that be considered ethnic discrimination? No, it would be ethnic discrimination if he refused to sell the wares he makes to a Middle Easterner.

So why, if he must sell whatever he makes to gays, should a baker have the right not to sell a wedding cake meant to be served at a gay wedding? If he practices his business according to his Christian beliefs, there is nothing in his religion that says he must not sell his wares to a non-believer. ln general, his baked goods have no religious connotation, with the exception of special occasions such as Easter and weddings. On those special occasions, his religion is paramount in the conception of the products meant to celebrate them. In his religion, those occasions represent a holy day or a holy sacrament. He cannot force anyone to buy his Easter cookies.

In his religion, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a holy sacrament. Marriage between same sex couples would be sacrilegious. For a Christian baker, if he is devout, there is no such thing as a gay wedding, and there would be no such wedding cake for him to make. Asking to bake such a cake would be asking him to participate in a blasphemy. Does he have a right to refuse such a request under his right to freedom of religion?

If he is willing to sell to gays any of his wares which he has made with no intention that they serve some irreligious purpose, then in that respect he does not discriminate against them. But in matters of freedom of religion, as practiced in his public life, should he be forced to trespass his faith by participating in something that counters it? Is there no accommodation there between gay rights and religious rights?

Sure there is. As was said above, he will sell any of the wares he creates in which he has or had no intention that they be used to blaspheme his religion. All the products pre-made and on his shelves are of that nature. If you prefer to have him bake something rather than buying a pre-made product, don't ask him to do so with the intention of serving some purpose that is contrary to his faith. That is asking him to participate in what he religiously believes is wrong. Just ask him to bake a cake. Then do whatever you want with it. Even ask for a wedding cake, but you don't have to tell him what it's for. If he asks you what it's for, and your honest, don't expect him to comply with your request if it makes him complicit in what he considers sin.

His right to practice his religion in the public square does not negate a homosexual's right to marry. Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

yes...

Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

Exactly.

But that's not good enough for the liberals, at least on this issue. Everyone must be forcibly made to agree with them.

Exactly.

Everyone must be forcibly made to agree with them.

this is abundantly clear....

If gay couple has right to buy whatever a baker sells, does the baker have a right not to sell certain products? Obviously, he has that right. He doesn't have to bake or sell Middle Eastern pastries, for instance. Would that be considered ethnic discrimination? No, it would be ethnic discrimination if he refused to sell the wares he makes to a Middle Easterner.

The couple wasn't demanding a sugar-free baklawa, they were looking for the same sort of wedding cake the baker made every day.

The couple wasn't demanding a sugar-free baklawa, they were looking for the same sort of wedding cake the baker made every day.

You keep repeating this shortened version and avoiding the rest of the story.