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

[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.

[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

[spence]

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

[Slipknot]

there is no cake

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Nebe]

I do t hate Christians at all. I just disagree with the behavior
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.

[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 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."

[wdmso]

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

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

[wdmso]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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...

[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."

[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.

[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 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.

[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...

[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]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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/o...mendment.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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/o...mendment.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.

[DZ]

Some comic levity.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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