Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 12-29-2013, 12:29 PM   #181
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The guy is on record having baked a cake for a wedding between two dogs. Was he participating in that also?

-spence
What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs.

Or was it one of those cutesy things pet owners do which have no relation or meaning to the rest of society? You wanna make your dogs get "married," which don't amount to a pile of dog poop in terms of what marriage is as recognized either by religion or government? Don't mean squat to me (the baker) since it ain't for real. Here's your cake.

This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 12:37 PM   #182
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
I'm pretty sure most Gods don't give a damn who you bake a cake for, but they do care when you discriminate against your fellow man.
Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 01:29 PM   #183
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,869
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.
Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 05:27 PM   #184
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

I cannot tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with a bomb in it for a jihadist. I can't even tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with poison in it for a suicidal nut or someone who wants to kill his wife. Nor can I tell you where it is made mandatory in his religion to bake a cake for a gay couple, or for anybody else. I cannot tell you if his religion approves or disapproves of cakes. Not sure, but I don't think his religion approves of jihadist bombers, or suicide, or killing your wife. And I don't think his religion approves of helping anyone to do those things. I don't think his religion condones homosexual marriage. I think, quite the contrary, it considers the act of consummating same sex as sodomy. I cannot tell you if his religion is OK with the baker helping folks to celebrate their sodomy, or if it is totally indifferent to it, but I defer to the baker's own interpretation. I'm sure you disagree with it, but your not baking the cake.

IT'S NOT ABOUT SIMPLY BAKING A CAKE! No one disagrees with your wide, perhaps infinite, latitude of agreeability. But you simply cannot grant any reason for the baker's motives because you think they're stupid. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said something like what marks a bigot is not being able to see even the possibility of the other side's opinion.


Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

He was asked to do a service (paid favor) for the party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

Is that because religion is meaningless in this day and age? Apparently, many others don't see it that way. If you think religion was only useful in another day and age because it kept you out of a persecutor's rack, and had no other meaning than to get ahead in society, then it would have been intrinsically meaningless in all days and ages. And would have been just another social scheme, like all the social schemes of today, to make your life "better." Our social climbers and equal opportunity seekers are today participating in the scheme of today's political religion and bowing to its god the State. I guess, if the mantle of "religion" has been rewoven into the cloak of secular worship, religion is "stupid" and gaming the system is "smart."

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?
It's not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either the biblical or the political sense. It is baking to satisfy someone's personal fantasy--which most cakes, in some way, do.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 08:09 PM   #185
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,432
I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

If a man and a man love each other, they should be allowed to live together and have a bond on paper. And in reality.. The biggest reason gays have fought for the right to Marry is to be allowed to visit their partner if he or she is dieing in a hospital, and to have equal rights that men and women have as far as these things... It's all the little details.

But when you consider how many people have died on our planet because of fighting over imaginary men in the clouds, I'm really not surprised.

If this baker was a Muslim, I wonder if he would martyr himself in the name of Allah...

Santa Claus tells us all to be good all year long or we get coal. I struggle to see the difference...
There is no Easter bunny.. There is no Santa, and once you understand that religion is used to control the sheep of society to all behave in a harmonious way, you realize that you are actually capable of thinking for yourself!! Then if you are smart enough and can judge between right and wrong, you don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to pull your strings...

Societal utopia is a world where the entire race does not worship anything outside of themselves and one another.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way.

I would love to see a number of how many peoe have died in the last 1000 years because of religion. Billions?? Hey... It's good population control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:01 PM   #186
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.
Nobody is comparing them to each other...they are just trying to point out that what might not be negatively viewed by one might be by somebody else.....and visa versa.

If he doesn't support it.....he doesn't support it.....who the #^&#^&#^&#^& am I to tell him what to do with his life...or his business.

Nobody here said anything against gay marriage.....they just support the baker doing what he wants and being left alone.

You're arguing something that isn't even being argued here....

And as far as your 2 commandments.....how is not just going somewhere else to get a cake.....instead of hiring lawyers and involving the ACLU, being cool and not being an A-hole....seems like a pretty big A-hole move to me

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:06 PM   #187
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,432
My point is that the only way to back up this guy and defend him is to make the comparison to something waaaaay more extreme. Gays don't want to hurt anyone. They don't push a supremacist agenda.. They just want to be left in peace. But I hear you....this is about the bakers right to do as he pleases. I'm kind of cranky tonight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:31 PM   #188
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,426
Nebe,nobody is really saying anything other than the guy is a dick, but he has the right to be a dick.Say what you want about the two commandments but this country was founded on the constitution (outdated) and I believe we all have the birthright to be a dick and discriminate at our will. It may not always be cool or popular and it may ruffle feathers for all of you group hug types,but it just seems we should be entitled to do as we please in these instances.The guy wasn't really hurting anything except his own reputation and the feelings of the happy couple.I say what's the big deal." It's very easy to always be cool but it's the pricks and malcontents that enable us to have the expanding freedoms you seem to enjoy.

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:48 PM   #189
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,432
Good point.

No wonder the rest of the world hates us. It's our RIGHT to be A-holes.
In all seriousness. I agree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:58 PM   #190
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

Wow . . . what a sentence. I guess because this follows my post that it inspired this reply. I am not sure what you mean by "conservative." I often put it in quotes because the word is so loosely used to mean anything from an intolerant bigot who is ruining society or a saint who is saving it. From the posts where you throw the word in it sounds like you view it more like the bigot than the saint. I don't refer to myself as a "conservative." There are some things I like to conserve and much that I don't. I am not a "liberal" but am liberal in the classical sense. Politically I would like to conserve the classically liberal view of government. I don't support the "hick," as you call the baker, I support and try to defend the liberal form of government we once had and which is giving way to a more repressive one.

That you read a comparison of gays or Neo-Nazis in my post may speak more volumes of either your reading comprehension or your inability to see what is actually there and so impose your own narrow (bigoted?) prejudged interpretation of it.


If a man and a man love each other, they should be allowed to live together and have a bond on paper. And in reality.. The biggest reason gays have fought for the right to Marry is to be allowed to visit their partner if he or she is dieing in a hospital, and to have equal rights that men and women have as far as these things... It's all the little details.

They have had the right to live together for as long as I can remember. And if they wanted to have a legal bond to do so, nothing prevented them from going to a lawyer and putting it "on paper." If they had such legal papers be it via civil union or a "paper" signed by both parties to do so they could visit their dying loved one in a hospital. As far as equal rights to government marriage benefits go, I don't think even men/women should have them. I can understand society's concern for the procreation and raising of children, but large intrusions of government "help" and regulation discriminates financially against single folks. And makes no sense for the increasingly growing number of childless couples. But that was the initial reason for government intrusion, and gays simply don't have the complimentary biological equipment to procreate, so how can they have equal marriage rights? I would consider all the little details, and get government mostly out of the marriage benefit programs. As well as out of the marriage penalty stuff.

But when you consider how many people have died on our planet because of fighting over imaginary men in the clouds, I'm really not surprised.

Are you certain that the imaginary men in clouds syndrome is any more culpable than all the other motives for killing? the big wars where hundreds of thousands or even millions have been killed have not been about imaginary men in the clouds. Imaginary men in the clouds folks have also saved or helped thousands or millions of other people.

If this baker was a Muslim, I wonder if he would martyr himself in the name of Allah...

I've heard of men martyring themselves over broken romances. Humans are capable of dying for lots of reasons of which you would disapprove. So what? You want to start a movement, or just sadly wonder and make sarcastic comments?

Santa Claus tells us all to be good all year long or we get coal. I struggle to see the difference...
There is no Easter bunny.. There is no Santa, and once you understand that religion is used to control the sheep of society to all behave in a harmonious way, you realize that you are actually capable of thinking for yourself!! Then if you are smart enough and can judge between right and wrong, you don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to pull your strings...

Sure there are Easter bunnies and Santa Clauses. I've seen movies and paintings, even glass blown images of them. They make for little bits of pleasure. Are you a Grinch? Religion can be used to control the "sheep." So can so-called democratic systems controlled by demagogues. The controlling of the sheep in our society has been done lately by demagogues dispersing more "candies" and goodies than an Easter bunny or a Santa could ever do. Perhaps people trust them more to pull their strings than imaginary men in the sky because the goodies they get are more abundant and tangible so the more worthy of dancing to the strings.

Societal utopia is a world where the entire race does not worship anything outside of themselves and one another.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

That, at least, is a more unique way of defining utopia. So how does that "respect of each others' happiness is equal to our own" work in the gays vs. the baker case? Is the baker's happiness equal to the gays' happiness? That all would work well if everybody had the same happiness. Would be kinda redundant, though--make for very boring movies. What happens to viva la difference? I think the Founders concept, though not utopian, provided for a way to make everyone's diverse happinesses, at least the pursuit of them, a viable proposition. That's what I'ld like to conserve.

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way.

Those commandments work well in various types of societies. They work especially well in monochrome societies where differences are limited and frowned upon. And most especially well in very structured, regulated societies, bee-hive like or borg-like societies. In dictatorships those commandments are absolutely necessary and actually, though expressed in more legalistic verbiage, are part of the official code of conduct. But in the more diverse, complex, and freer societies, with various personalities and differing points of view and greater passions for expressing those points, there is far greater probability that coolness will not prevail and the other guy will be the A-hole. The greatest growth, in most measurable facets, of our society of free individuals happened amidst rambunctious, energetic, bustling activities which had no little opportunity for expression of likes and dislikes. It was wild, exciting, and still a model for interesting and entertaining stories. Your an artist--what would instigate the most entertaining, expressive, exciting, even beautiful art? A static world of think and act alikes living in a utopian comfort lacking in disruption, or one with the friction of human interaction?

I would love to see a number of how many peoe have died in the last 1000 years because of religion. Billions?? Hey... It's good population control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I have a suspicion that Obamacare will be a far more effective means of population control.

Last edited by detbuch; 12-29-2013 at 10:30 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 01:55 AM   #191
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you do realize that you've succeeded in defining yourself as a bigot or "biggot"....

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

similar to what has been stated, I would have baked the cake.....but I'm adamantly opposed to the judge forcing this guy to do so if he has deeply held religious beliefs that he concludes would be compromised by doing so.... there is no evidence that he was rude or disrespectful to the couple...you and others have repeatedly tried to assign absurd motivations and actions to him absent any evidence in order demonize him to make a case...it is entirely possible that outside of this incident the baker is a generous, model citizen in the community and the couple might be quite the contrary but you would never consider that based on all of your biased assumptions

I guess "live and let live" and "be cool and don't be an a-hole" are "relative" as defined by you and additionally, you are happy to have a court impose these standards on another and rain some impressive hostility down on those that might stray from your standards of behavior....I find that far more threatening than a baker refusing to bake a cake for any reason...but I guess I shouldn't feel threatened as long as I don't step out of line and I abide by your loosely defined standards of behavior and thought ...right???...is that how it goes in Societal Utopia?


BTW....if you read back through..it was you, TDF and Spence who began injecting/discussing the Nazi and Al Qaeda references

you tend to see only what you want to see

Last edited by scottw; 12-30-2013 at 07:29 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 07:46 AM   #192
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
this country was founded on the constitution (outdated) .
this would be an interesting discussion
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 07:52 AM   #193
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,869
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It's not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either the biblical or the political sense. It is baking to satisfy someone's personal fantasy--which most cakes, in some way, do.
Baking a cake for a gay wedding isn't "taking part" either.
Its just baking a cake.

You're contradicting yourself, keep your stories straight!

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 11:36 AM   #194
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs.
If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

Quote:
This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.
The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 02:37 PM   #195
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
Baking a cake for a gay wedding isn't "taking part" either.
Its just baking a cake.

You're contradicting yourself, keep your stories straight!
It was you who said that if he baked a cake for two dogs getting married it would be "taking part" in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman". That is what I responded to. So if you are now saying that analogously baking a cake for a gay wedding ISN'T "taking part" then it is you , not I, who is contradicting himself, and it is you who should keep your story straight.

And I didn't say that baking the cake was not "taking part or contributing" to the two dog "wedding." I said it was not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either a biblical or political sense. That is, it was not a marriage in any real sense as was the gay marriage. It was, I'm guessing, some kind of fantasy by the dog owners. So the baker was indeed contributing to the phony dog marriage that had no impact on his religious beliefs.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 03:10 PM   #196
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

I'm thinking he considered it no more than a harmless fantasy not intended to insult the tradition of marriage, or to change that tradition in any way. If there was some dog lover movement to "legalize" dog marriage, that would be a different story. Most Christians aren't so easily offended as, perhaps, Muslims are. If they were, the present state of government regulations and judicial decisions, as well as media portrayals, would have our society in a constant turmoil of burnings and bombings and all manor of havoc and killing as goes on in many Muslim dominated societies. Are you saying that he should have been more personally offended by the dog wedding? That's up to him. To be or not to be.

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

Jesus added a New Testament to the religion he was born in. I don't know if he intended to completely throw out the old religion. Certainly most Christians don't consider the Old Testament to be totally obsolete. They seem to abide much of what is in it, including its views on sodomy.

The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence
Progressive judges have been making up laws for the past eighty years. And the progression and precedents of those "decisions" have led to not only laws on which present judges model their decisions, but have created a whole new mode of "interpretation." This judge follows in this progressive tradition by deciding on his own to determine what would create hurt or harm to society. The sense the Founders had of judicial decision was a determination based on law and an interpretation of what the words in the law meant, as written, and if governmental legislation actually abided by the restrictions the law allowed (i.e. enumerations in the Constitution). So, in his way, this judge added to this progressive tradition of inserting his personal views and feelings about what is good for society rather than following the ultimate law, the First Amendment. Their might be room for local government to impose restrictions on absolute (like that word here?) denial of service to a class of people (though, as I have said, that is in itself discriminatory), but not if it contradicts a constitutional guarantee. Not only did his decision, in the limited text of the reports, fail to include the State of Colorado's Constitution not recognizing gay marriage, but it violated the baker's First Amendment right in order to satisfy his personal opinion on what would harm society.

Last edited by detbuch; 12-31-2013 at 01:52 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2013, 10:27 AM   #197
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Nobody is comparing them to each other...they are just trying to point out that what might not be negatively viewed by one might be by somebody else.....and visa versa.

If he doesn't support it.....he doesn't support it.....who the #^&#^&#^&#^& am I to tell him what to do with his life...or his business.

Nobody here said anything against gay marriage.....they just support the baker doing what he wants and being left alone.

You're arguing something that isn't even being argued here....

And as far as your 2 commandments.....how is not just going somewhere else to get a cake.....instead of hiring lawyers and involving the ACLU, being cool and not being an A-hole....seems like a pretty big A-hole move to me

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Best post on this thread...
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2013, 10:30 AM   #198
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...



The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence
Spoence, do you think a "marriage" between 2 dogs, is the equivalent of a marriage between two homosexuals? You don't see the difference there?

"The judge didn't make up the law."

But he may have ignored the constitution. That's what is bothersome to some here. Judges take an oath to uphold all of our laws, not just the ones they happen to like.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2014, 05:33 PM   #199
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,869
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
And I didn't say that baking the cake was not "taking part or contributing" to the two dog "wedding." I said it was not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either a biblical or political sense. That is, it was not a marriage in any real sense as was the gay marriage. It was, I'm guessing, some kind of fantasy by the dog owners. So the baker was indeed contributing to the phony dog marriage that had no impact on his religious beliefs.
So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2014, 07:37 PM   #200
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.
It's not just that it's not a real wedding. It all centers around the fact that this man's church sees homosexuality as a sin. Not merely that it's not a "real" marriage, but that the couple are actively sinning.

Many devout people will go to great lengths to avoid condoning, or overlooking, or participating in, a sinful act. The baker may genuinely believe that he is endangering his soul if he gave them a cake. I don't feel that way, and you don't feel that way, but he feels that way. And what none of the liberals here (as far as I can tell) will comment on, is this...like it or not, the Constitution guarantees him the right to feel this way.

Freedom of speech guarantees Kanye West the right to say that George Bush was a racist. Freedom of the press gives MSNBC the right to say that Governor Palin deserves to have someone deficate in her mouth. And like it or not, the Freedom Of Religion gives this baker the right to refuse to have any part of a homosexual wedding.

The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights are not reserved for those that you happen to agree with. Denying those rights to political opponents is the textbook definition of totalitarianism.

Try making that wrong.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2014, 11:15 PM   #201
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.
I said the dog marriage was not real in a biblical or political sense--those senses which define and make it socially valid, or real. The dog marriage is a "real" marriage in the eyes of the dog owners. But real under what terms and conditions other than some form of play acting for some fun purpose, I can't rationally imagine. Maybe there is some dog cult thing? Not sure if the dogs were concerned about the reality of the funny motions and noises which they might or might not have been paying attention to during the ceremony. Which by itself would not have made the "marriage" valid or worthy of any respect as such. I doubt if a pastor of the baker's church would have performed a dog marriage. Maybe under some make-believe fun scenario. But asking the pastor to do so under the solemn rites of his church with the intention of doing so as an act of worship and practice of his religion would probably have been turned down. At any rate, any "reality" attributed to a dog marriage would be limited to personal perspectives, not part of any universally or majoritarian view, certainly not sanctioned as a legal entity by a Christian or government code. So, as a peculiar notion which is not accepted as anything more than an eccentricity and did not affect, as he saw it, his religious beliefs, he might have gone along with the play and made a really nice dog "marriage" cake.

As far as the gay marriage being a fantasy . . . no. It was intended as a government sanctioned relation defined legally as a marriage, and even, if they were married in a church that allowed gay marriage, a union of holy matrimony. As pointed out by Jim in Ct, such a marriage would be a sin in the baker's faith. It would be a sanction of a type of sodomy which the baker considered was contrary to his religious belief. Further, I have heard further reports that the gays wanted a cake expressive of their union. They did get a cake from another baker. It was decorated in rainbow colors to express their relationship. The baker also said that he doesn't make usual cakes, but artistically expressive cakes. Which may be why the gays went to him first. But the baker felt that the cake they wanted would express something he didn't want to say, or be recognized as saying. That forcing him to bake such a cake would also be violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-01-2014 at 11:34 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com