Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheResearcher

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding

108 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, FatBoy said:

I wouldn't have gone to the trouble these two gay guys went to for a cake, but I can see the danger in allowing this type of discrimination.

 

Yea. I am thinking who else is it against his "religion" to serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FatBoy said:

But you might get gay cooties. :o

If you ask me, it's theatrics on both sides. It would be funny if it weren't for the unintended consequences. Regardless of the outcome, there could be precedent set by the SCOTUS. I believe the Justices need to be very mindful of the wording in the decision.

 

Must have had an autocorrect on my phone in there somewhere, because I have no idea how "Providing the cake has no impact..." got in there.  Where I was going is to say that the theological view in this case would require an understanding that the cake somehow contributes to the actions of the married gay couple that the theological view opposes. 

Does anyone believe the wedding couple and guests as Cana were all perfect?  Yet Christ provided the wine.

Bakers, it's a cake.  The worst thing it will do is add some fat around the mid-section of the couple. 

But you're right about how SCOTUS phrases the decision,  One way or the other, I don't see how they come out of this with a narrow ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too sure how you could get a narrow ruling allowing only discrimination against gays on the basis of religious beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most partisan arguments I can understand the logic of the other side’s viewpoint.  But there is not any logic reason to oppose gay marriage.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dinglehopper said:

In most partisan arguments I can understand the logic of the other side’s viewpoint.  But there is not any logic reason to oppose gay marriage.   

If the Bible thumpers actually took their Bibles seriously, men would not be able to divorce, and divorced women would have to remain single or reconcile with their husbands.  (I Corinthians 7:10-11)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dinglehopper said:

In most partisan arguments I can understand the logic of the other side’s viewpoint.  But there is not any logic reason to oppose gay marriage.   

Correct.  All the reasons revolve around religion in one way or another.... the antithesis of logic.

America is still in the grips of WASPism.   It will die... eventually.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

If the Bible thumpers actually took their Bibles seriously, men would not be able to divorce, and divorced women would have to remain single or reconcile with their husbands.  (I Corinthians 7:10-11)

Good Christians pick and choose Bible verses to serve their purpose.  Evangelicals supported Trump after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, gonzoliberal said:

Correct.  All the reasons revolve around religion in one way or another.... the antithesis of logic.

America is still in the grips of WASPism.   It will die... eventually.

 

Are you saying Christianity and white people will die off?  Is that something you are hoping for?

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EgyptKang said:

Yea. I am thinking who else is it against his "religion" to serve.

Yes, I actually agree with you, although I would broaden it.  What we are talking about here is allowing a religious exemption for obeying anti-discrimination laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Are you saying Christianity and white people will die off?  Is that something you are hoping for?

Did you really not understand what he posted or are you just trying to pick a fight? :rolleyes:

How on earth you go from a statement of WASPism dying off to Christianity and white people dying off and perhaps the poster hoping for it is beyond me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Are you saying Christianity and white people will die off?  Is that something you are hoping for?

Just WASPs.  Us white Catholics who aren't anglo-saxons will be fine.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, banner1124 said:

Did you really not understand what he posted or are you just trying to pick a fight? :rolleyes:

How on earth you go from a statement of WASPism dying off to Christianity and white people dying off and perhaps the poster hoping for it is beyond me

Its of great concen to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

What we are talking about here is allowing a religious exemption for obeying anti-discrimination laws. 

Or put another way, we are talking about the Government violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment.

Quote

 As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Are you saying Christianity and white people will die off?  Is that something you are hoping for?

Not white people.  And not just Christianity.  All of the old myth fairytales.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Are you saying Christianity and white people will die off?  Is that something you are hoping for?

Mixing of the races will homogenize the masses eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinglehopper said:

In most partisan arguments I can understand the logic of the other side’s viewpoint.  But there is not any logic reason to oppose gay marriage.   

Ah, but there maybe ... 

TRADITION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Glengarry said:

Or put another way, we are talking about the Government violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

"Businesses have raised First Amendment objections to antidiscrimination laws in the past, but the Supreme Court has always rejected them. In 1968, the Court dismissed as “patently frivolous” a South Carolina restaurant chain’s argument that serving black customers “interfere[d] with the ‘free exercise of [its] religion.’”1 Five years later, when private racially segregated schools opposed a prohibition on racial discrimination in admissions, asserting that it violated their freedom of association, the Court acknowledged that “private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the First Amendment,” but ruled that such discrimination “has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.”2 And in 1984, when a corporate law firm objected that a requirement to consider a woman for partner would interfere with its First Amendment rights to speak and associate, the Court once again rejected the contention, stating that there is “no constitutional right to discriminate.”3

If the courts were to recognize a First Amendment exemption to such general regulations of commercial conduct, it would render antidiscrimination laws, and many other business regulations, unenforceable in many settings. Consider the First Amendment right of association. Any prohibition on discrimination can be characterized as a requirement to associate with those with whom one would rather not associate. The Court must choose between the two, and its choice has been clear since Brown v. Board of Education declared segregation unconstitutional.

Religious exemptions are also generally incompatible with antidiscrimination laws. Beyond asking whether a religious belief is sincere, the courts have no way to measure whether religious beliefs are “legitimate.” As a result, a constitutional religious exemption would free any business owner who framed his objection in religious terms from an obligation to treat his customers equally. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court in rejecting a free exercise claim in 1990, laws of general applicability “could not function” if they were subject to such religious challenges. Quoting an 1878 decision, Scalia warned that such an exemption would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”5"

Link

As much as the Republicans and its members on the Supreme Court would like to drive us into the past, in this case, they will have to upset a fair amount of precedent to do so.

But as the Heller decision shows us, they've done it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Link

As much as the Republicans and its members on the Supreme Court would like to drive us into the past, in this case, they will have to upset a fair amount of precedent to do so.

But as the Heller decision shows us, they've done it before.

If you don't like the 1st Amendment, repeal it.  

Quote

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause. The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.” The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. 

 

 

Edited by Glengarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glengarry said:

If you don't like the 1st Amendment, repeal it.  

 

 

Please tell the segregationists of yore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

If the Bible thumpers actually took their Bibles seriously, men would not be able to divorce, and divorced women would have to remain single or reconcile with their husbands.  (I Corinthians 7:10-11)

adultery is a Biblical reason for divorce allowing the aggrieved spouse to be able to remarry in the eyes of the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

adultery is a Biblical reason for divorce allowing the aggrieved spouse to be able to remarry in the eyes of the church.

Yes, but Paul's command come's after Jesus' statements (which don't always include the adultery sections).  Paul claims to be speaking for the Lord here.  Maybe Jesus was just preparing folks for the final word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

adultery is a Biblical reason for divorce allowing the aggrieved spouse to be able to remarry in the eyes of the church.

I believe you have to put an Eye of Newt in your naval during the sabbath for the exception to kick in.

That's why Eye of Newt is so scarce in modern times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glengarry said:

If you don't like the 1st Amendment, repeal it.  

 

 

That is addressed by the link in the post you are referring to.

"Beyond asking whether a religious belief is sincere, the courts have no way to measure whether religious beliefs are “legitimate.” As a result, a constitutional religious exemption would free any business owner who framed his objection in religious terms from an obligation to treat his customers equally.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court in rejecting a free exercise claim in 1990, laws of general applicability “could not function” if they were subject to such religious challenges. Quoting an 1878 decision, Scalia warned that such an exemption would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”5""

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dinglehopper said:

Not white people.  And not just Christianity.  All of the old myth fairytales.  

I think you and your ilk will die off before that happens.  Yay!

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

I think you and your ilk will die off before that happens.  Yay!

Maybe so.  If I am dead I won’t care.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0