Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nonsense, when you have a party at your home, is everyone invited? I dare say that you select who you wish to entertain in your home. I see no reason to imagine that a good businessman cannot be selective in who he hires, fires, and decides to service. The proof is in the bottom line. Not every person who shows up at the dance club is admitted.Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "
Do you even attend church? And if you do -- what criteria do you consider sacred? Is it more important to please GOD or man? And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings? I mean, "all" it is are two guys in suits kissing each other at the end of the ceremony (to hear you tell it).Participate?? They expect him to be a ring bearer? I fail to see how putting a little plastic stature of 2 guys on a cake with names and Best Wishes violates ones religious beliefs. Well, considering what passes for religion today, maybe it would. Seems pretty stupid to me, but then I don't go to a church that teaches hate and intolerance.Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.
Correct, if the gay couple just bought a pre-made cake it would have been no problem. They wanted the cake makers to participate which they could not do because of their religious beliefs.
ManIs it more important to please GOD or man?
Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?
Possibly? But there is no indication that they did.Here's a question: should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker? If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it? Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?
Possibly? But there is no indication that they did.Here's a question: should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker? If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it? Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied
We do not know that for a fact.read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy. Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?
How much hard would you feel is done to you if you were refused good or service because you were Irish, or Jewish, or Catholic, or anything at all that the proprietor disapproved of and you were embarrassed, humiliated or just inconvenienced by not getting the same treatment as others.? And maybe there is not another service of what ever kind you need that you feel will meet your needs and desiresif there are other bakeries nearby then how much harm is done to the gay couple? Who is the more intolerant here, a baker who will sell them anything else but a decorated wedding cake or a gay couple that could go anywhere else to get their cake?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied
Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.
Let's hope so. Them fornicators are the worst, aren't they! OMG, next thing ya know they'll be dogs and cats.. living together!The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?
We do not know that for a fact.read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy. Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied
Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.
Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom
Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:
1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.
2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.
1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.
2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:
You are comparing apples oranges. You can give a party in your home and exclude anyone. However, if that party is open to the public and you decide to deny entrance based on sex, race, religion, country of origin, or sexual preference, then you're going to be violating law.Nonsense, when you have a party at your home, is everyone invited? I dare say that you select who you wish to entertain in your home. I see no reason to imagine that a good businessman cannot be selective in who he hires, fires, and decides to service. The proof is in the bottom line. Not every person who shows up at the dance club is admitted.Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "
You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination in hiring or selecting customers.
Yes, no one should be setting people up like that.We do not know that for a fact.read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy. Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?
IF it were true would it make a difference to you?
Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied
Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.
Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom
Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:
1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.
2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.
1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.
2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:
There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life. The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.
Good businessman? Those who deliberately break the law are generally called criminalsYou are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination
synonyms: lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant;
thief, burglar, robber, armed robber, gunman, gangster, terrorist;
informalcrook, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird, perp;
malfeasant
