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

2 hours ago, FatBoy said:

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.  

Nope just a run-of-the mill Church of Christ doctrine. I'm sure sure about the Catholics. I don't think Presbyterians care one way or the other. 

Share this post


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

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.

Under the old covenant or law, Jewish men could divorce a wife for any reason and she could just be kicked out into the cold. Jesus's statements on divorce were mostly directed towards them. He also knew about woman at the well who had, what, seven husbands?

Edited by Wild Eyed Southern Boy

Share this post


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

Under the old covenant or law, Jewish men could divorce a wife for any reason and she could just be kicked out into the cold. Jesus's statements on divorce were mostly directed towards them. He also knew about woman at the well who had, what, seven husbands?

Ah, the good old days. That's pretty much what my first wife did to me. And I had to pay her for the pleasure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

Under the old covenant or law, Jewish men could divorce a wife for any reason and she could just be kicked out into the cold. Jesus's statements on divorce were mostly directed towards them. He also knew about woman at the well who had, what, seven husbands?

That's John 4:4-30 or so.  She did have five husbands but the passage doesn't describe if she is divorced or a widow.  She was a woman of great faith and is honored in Catholic tradition as St. Photina.

Share this post


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

Ah, the good old days. That's pretty much what my first wife did to me. And I had to pay her for the pleasure. 

Been there - done that  (giving high-five dude salute)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going back through 5 pages, but I just learned something I hadn't realized about this case before-- maybe you all already did and I'm just dumb-- quite possible, but I wondering if you did notice or do now, if it makes a difference-- the baker would have sold him a stock cake--i.e., one of his standard designs like on display-- but the couple wanted to work hand in hand with him in designing a custom cake for him to then create- bake- make--  which he contends is for him an art form, and he declined to do that. Also, they weren't denied because they were gay but instead because they were getting married- as gays, yes, but not quite the same- presumably, he would have sold him anything in the store that was standard, ready to go that didn't involve his creative talents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saticon3 said:

Not going back through 5 pages, but I just learned something I hadn't realized about this case before-- maybe you all already did and I'm just dumb-- quite possible, but I wondering if you did notice or do now, if it makes a difference-- the baker would have sold him a stock cake--i.e., one of his standard designs like on display-- but the couple wanted to work hand in hand with him in designing a custom cake for him to then create- bake- make--  which he contends is for him an art form, and he declined to do that. Also, they weren't denied because they were gay but instead because they were getting married- as gays, yes, but not quite the same- presumably, he would have sold him anything in the store that was standard, ready to go that didn't involve his creative talents. 

Exactly, the result is that the law was forcing him to use his artistry to create a cake.  That is clearly involuntary servitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saticon3 said:

Not going back through 5 pages, but I just learned something I hadn't realized about this case before-- maybe you all already did and I'm just dumb-- quite possible, but I wondering if you did notice or do now, if it makes a difference-- the baker would have sold him a stock cake--i.e., one of his standard designs like on display-- but the couple wanted to work hand in hand with him in designing a custom cake for him to then create- bake- make--  which he contends is for him an art form, and he declined to do that. Also, they weren't denied because they were gay but instead because they were getting married- as gays, yes, but not quite the same- presumably, he would have sold him anything in the store that was standard, ready to go that didn't involve his creative talents. 

I have mixed feelings about this case but I wonder if the "free speech at all costs" crowd would take a stand against the baker if he opted to not do a cake with a Nazi theme, or an abortion theme, or something like that. I think not, nor do I think I would have any mixed feelings about that but when you force people to do things against their core beliefs doesn't that come with a cost and a risk when the opposite case inevitably comes to the fore. Slippery slopes on both sides of this issue.

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