Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Not according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament. Jesus would've gone to hell for an eternity. Because of the relatively few mortal (unforgivable) sins, aiding and abetting the spread of the homosexual lifestyle or practices in any society lands you eternity in the Pit of Fire.

God does not engage in sex. The only unforgivable sin is denying that Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah, the only Son of the Living GOD. That is unforgivable or everyone would be goring to heaven. There is no osin that can separate anyone from GOD but the denial and nonacceptance of Christ.

No, I'm pretty sure Jude 1 and Romans 1 speak for themselves. Jude was the personal daily servant of Jesus; and in his passage he recounts his master reiterating a rare Old Testament intolerance for certain human BEHAVIORS. He didn't plead with Jude to remember how God put the people of Sodom to death for no reason. He reminded him that to aid or abet especially the spread of homosexuality "as normal" with a culture is a mortal sin. There are other sins of course enumerated in the New Testament; venial ones that are forgivable under the eyes of God upon contrition and repentance. But helping to spread homosexuality isn't one of them.

I've written about this in depth before. But mainly I think the problem is that it fucks up God's matrix for the lessons we are here to learn. Solid roles in society are blurred by homosexuality. And a solid framework is what we need in which to learn our lessons. Blurring the lines of reality itself is what the gay cult is all about. So that really isn't cool with the Big Plan. I think it has less to do with sex and more to do with the perversion of the reality of sex.

Making matters worse, I'm pretty sure that God is aware of "monkey see, monkey do"; especially when it comes to formative children. If a child grows up seeing homosexuality as normal, then he himself will never see it as the sin it is. So that child cannot learn his lessons properly if he embraces "anything goes" sinful lifestyles. He cannot be blamed and the life lesson is utterly defunct. So the life must start over. I think that's why God destroyed every last man, woman and child in that society "and others like it" (paraphrased from Jude 1). Because in those matrixes nobody can learn a damn clear thing about right and wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

 

[LittleNipper]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Where is the Bible passage that this so called minister of God bases his sign on. I see no Chapter or Verse sited. And Jesus was raised in the family of a carpenter, not a baker. Jesus is certainly an individual of love and understanding;however, He always upheld the scriptures.
Matthew 10:14-16
14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.…

I don't know or care. He is addressing the philosophical Jesus . Something that you dogmatic theocrats have lost site of.

You don't know or care????? Then what possible logic can one glead from a made up philosophical view of Jesus that lacks biblical support?

II Timothy 4:2-4

2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4 So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.…

 

[LittleNipper]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.

 

[Grumblenuts]

the gay cult

Knock, knock...
The Christian Right Has A New Strategy On Gay Marriage
Meanwhile,
Half of LGB Americans Identify As Christian

 

[Grumblenuts]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.

You've failed to cover a few things there, no? Between a woman and a woman?, bi vs bi?, trans...

 

[Pop23]

Watch the video subtitled "Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding" knucklehead and commence weeping:
1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."

He objects because marriage is between a man and a woman (as it applies to a wedding cake numbnuts) and as such, he would not serve straight same sex as well.

But I think you knew that. If you didn’t, you’re simply stupid.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black". That's his own stupidity.

This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.

Good point..

I can picture what happened now in my brain, gays were flaunting, and the backer flaunted back saying his religion prevented him..


Youre right he should of just said no, I am busy.

 

[Pop23]

Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...

That’s not on the bakery.

 

[dblack]

Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black". That's his own stupidity.

This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.

Good point..

I can picture what happened now in my brain, gays were flaunting, and the backer flaunted back saying his religion prevented him..


Youre right he should of just said no, I am busy.

I'm not saying that. I don't think he should have to hide his beliefs. The fact the law requires him to remain silent is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...

That’s not on the bakery.

True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black". That's his own stupidity.

This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.

Good point..

I can picture what happened now in my brain, gays were flaunting, and the backer flaunted back saying his religion prevented him..


Youre right he should of just said no, I am busy.

I'm not saying that. I don't think he should have to hide his beliefs. The fact the law requires him to remain silent is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Noticed that myself. Seems bear513 was only responding to WorldWatcher, not you. I will respond to you. Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado.First Amendment arguments are complete crap in this case. The baker outright denied them service before any cake decorating or writing ("art") could even be discussed. And, again, he was allowed to express his opinions to the customers and did -- like an idiot, just as WorldWatcher noted.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That said, the argument that he should have just said he was too busy falls short in the long run if it becomes noticed as a pattern for denying minorities service. Class action lawsuit now instead of just one. It's parallel to arguing for institutional racism to replace slavery.

 

[OldLady]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.

Yep?

The very first sentence of the Opinion. Link on page 1 of this thread.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages

Are you suggesting that indicates he was asked to do something beyond the POS or what?

I was answering a simple question by pulling up the SC decision.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I guess I am changing my mind on this a person goes into a store and asks can you bake me a cake because I am getting married..

The baker says fine


The guy says " it's not a traditional marrige", could you please put on the frosting it's a marriage with me and james..


I am a sure the baker would say fine ok, ..


This has to deal with more in your face obnoxious confrontation's then anything else..

 

[OldLady]

He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.

And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!

I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?

 

[dblack]

Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado.

This is simply not true. First of all, as we've already established, he can discriminate all he wants as long as he keeps his reasoning to himself. Second, the law only prohibits a few kinds of discrimination - those on the "protected classes" list. Everything else is fair game. Businesses can discriminate against people because of their looks, their accent, their clothes. They can discriminate against people because they're poor, fat, stupid, or pretty much any other bias that isn't on the list.

These laws don't ensure that all customers are treated equally. And they don't ensure that any particular groups won't get discriminated against. They simply prevent the business from claiming any of the prohibited reasons when they discriminate. And that's not a technicality. That's the point. The laws are trying to keep bigotry from spreading.

 

[Pop23]

Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...

That’s not on the bakery.

True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.

Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest.

The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado.

This is simply not true. First of all, as we've already established, he can discriminate all he wants as long as he keeps his reasoning to himself. Second, the law only prohibits a few kinds of discrimination - those on the "protected classes" list. Everything else is fair game. Businesses can discriminate against people because of their looks, their accent, their clothes. They can discriminate against people because they're poor, fat, stupid, or pretty much any other bias that isn't on the list.

These laws don't ensure that all customers are treated equally. And they don't ensure that any particular groups won't get discriminate against. They simply prevent the business from claiming any of the prohibited reasons when they discriminate. And that's not a technicality. That's the point. The laws are trying to keep bigotry from spreading.

Say I agree completely, and I do appreciate the thoughtful response, are you suggesting that a government taking steps to "keep bigotry from spreading" is automatically a bad thing?