A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[PaulS]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

[scottw]

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.”

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[PaulS]

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

[Jim in CT]

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.