Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[dblack]

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.

Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.

Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms.

But these laws are the exact opposite of that.

As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.

Indeed. But, interestingly, support for that kind of corporatism is usually justified (or perhaps just rationalized) by a desire to improve the economy.

 

[Ibentoken]

But the laws are constitutional. Rational discussion has to begin with proven facts, and the pt was Ibentoken as usual follows his own separate reality. And, really, I don't see John "not Jay" Roberts taking on civil rights laws ... no matter how much he might dearly love to do so. As Seawytch posted convincingly, the public is not moving in that direction either.

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

 

[Mac1958]

Why can't you all be tolerant?

Good one.

Don't hold your breath.

.

 

[bendog]

Dblack, I'd sorry but I just don't see PA laws as corporatism. I realize the argument can be made that the laws don't protect other groups, like fat ugly and stupid. And, I'm sure shiny happy people get hired earier than others.

But, my father's best friend was a guy who worked in commercial banking got sent in to turn around offices that were not operating up to speed. He openly said was the first thing he did was get rid of the gays and women.

 

[chikenwing]

So, we are told gay conversion therapy is evil, but re-education for a Christian is court ordered.

Crazy times we live in

Hypocritical times for sure,they stamp thier little feet like children all the while ignoring knowingly the gross hypocrisy produce.

Lack of honesty

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

 

[bodecea]

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

 

[Ibentoken]

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

 

[Ibentoken]

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

His Freedom of Religion, which I am well aware of, doesn't change the rules we set for Businesses. He is an Individual, and therefore has certain rights. He owns a Business, which has to follow certain rules. The rule that you abhor is no different from licensing requirements, fire codes, health and safety regulations, zoning laws, and all the rest, none of which his faith and beliefs have any bearing on. He's in business, act like it. He can act like a church in church, that we allow...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

Elane Photography took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, the decision was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court and the SCOTUS rejected and appeal writ.


(And again, no one is "forced" to do anything. You voluntarily open a business, no one is forced to. You voluntarily decide on what goods and services to offer, no one is forced to. If you don't want to shoot wedding photographs for same-sex couples, don't offer wedding services. If you don't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, don't offer wedding cakes.)



>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs.

The hell you can't, and we do all the damn time. Really, grow the fuck up will you please? You whine like a child and it's damned annoying...

 

[Ibentoken]

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

His Freedom of Religion, which I am well aware of, doesn't change the rules we set for Businesses. He is an Individual, and therefore has certain rights. He owns a Business, which has to follow certain rules. The rule that you abhor is no different from licensing requirements, fire codes, health and safety regulations, zoning laws, and all the rest, none of which his, faith and beliefs have any bearing on. He's in business, act like it. He can act like a church in church, that we allow...

I couldn't get past your first sentence. Business rules do not trump the constitution. You leftists just can't quite get it.

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

Then do so.

 

[Ibentoken]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs.

The hell you can't, and we do all the damn time. Really, grow the fuck up will you please? You whine like a child and it's damned annoying...

Oh, go fuck yourself, you sick little punk.

 

[Ibentoken]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

Then do so.

I'm sure they will. It's being appealed also.

 

[Ibentoken]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs.

The hell you can't, and we do all the damn time. Really, grow the fuck up will you please? You whine like a child and it's damned annoying...

Here is an interesting point of view. Read it and hopefully you'll gain some perspective, dick nose.
Christian Cake Baker Appeals Government ?Re-Education? Order | CitizenLink

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

His Freedom of Religion, which I am well aware of, doesn't change the rules we set for Businesses. He is an Individual, and therefore has certain rights. He owns a Business, which has to follow certain rules. The rule that you abhor is no different from licensing requirements, fire codes, health and safety regulations, zoning laws, and all the rest, none of which his, faith and beliefs have any bearing on. He's in business, act like it. He can act like a church in church, that we allow...

I couldn't get past your first sentence. Business rules do not trump the constitution. You leftists just can't quite get it.

From Employment Division v. Smith:

" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Scalia authored that decision, you think Scalia is a leftist?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs.

The hell you can't, and we do all the damn time. Really, grow the fuck up will you please? You whine like a child and it's damned annoying...

Here is an interesting point of view. Read it and hopefully you'll gain some perspective, dick nose.
Christian Cake Baker Appeals Government ?Re-Education? Order | CitizenLink

Wow...

......... Person found in violation of the law disagrees and appeals the ruling.

......... Stop the presses and news at 11.




Really? That's an "interesting perspective"?



>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

His Freedom of Religion, which I am well aware of, doesn't change the rules we set for Businesses. He is an Individual, and therefore has certain rights. He owns a Business, which has to follow certain rules. The rule that you abhor is no different from licensing requirements, fire codes, health and safety regulations, zoning laws, and all the rest, none of which his, faith and beliefs have any bearing on. He's in business, act like it. He can act like a church in church, that we allow...

I couldn't get past your first sentence. Business rules do not trump the constitution. You leftists just can't quite get it.

From Employment Division v. Smith:

" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Scalia authored that decision, you think Scalia is a leftist?



>>>>

Queer marriage is a religious issue for many people. Your post doesn't cover that for a business owner. You can't force a citizen to labor against his will.