Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know. Maybe he used Christianity as a cover but was actually a member of some secret heterosexual Satanist cult which commanded a form of jihad against gays.

Maybe his religion dissuaded him from hiring "heathen sinners." I'm not sure if that's a class protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Even so, ordering the heathen sinners to bake the cake would still implicate him in supporting sinners. And I doubt if his god would approve of his trying to get around his faith in devious ways. That is one of the many ways "god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every Sunday children of the all holy God" differ from the less than scrupulous among us. We tend not to like cheating ways when used against us, but admire and recommend it to friends and family when it's to their advantage. Politicians are especially good at it.

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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"?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.