Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 24096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #850 on: January 07, 2018, 03:31:46 PM »
Oh, c'mon,  HS.   In your post #810 above,  you appear to mock the concerns of homosexuals in America,  noting that real prejudice is to be found in the actions of ISIS.   Well, what do you think ISIS is but religious zealotry taken to an extreme degree?   And how is INVAR really any different, with his moral certitude, hubris, and intolerance backed up by implied threats of violence?   His is the poison of Christian sharia,  claiming a right to ignore the reasonable rules of the secular community,  and to rebel with arms against our Constitutional republic.

And he, of course, casts himself as the victim,  alleging that folks like me who support the community's reasonable rules seek to march him off to a labor camp.   He has more freedom to practice his faith in this country than in any other nation on earth.   But it is not, of course, enough, unless he can rob others of their rights and dignity.  My neighbors are not "perverts" and "deviants", and I will continue to defend them.
 

Look, @Jazzhead, if your neighbors can claim a right to play 'hide the salami' pushing it in the 'out' door, then the baker should have the right to not bake them a cake to celebrate that. Plain and simple.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #851 on: January 07, 2018, 03:37:25 PM »
Actually Sam.  That is not true.

He and I have polar opposite understandings of who and what our Savior is, where we learn of His Will, and what He expects of those who call him Lord.

Well then do you think you're winning him to Christ the way this is going?
James 1:20

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #852 on: January 07, 2018, 03:39:45 PM »
And I do.

Edit:   But please don't misunderstand me.   I don't believe Christian business people are bigots.  To the contrary,  I've more than once sought out the services of folks who have advertised the fact that they are Christians.  Christian business people, in my experience,  tend to be honest and fair in their dealings.   

Yes, I've called the Oregon baker a bigot, and believe that he is.  But that's because of his actions to humiliate his customer and politicize her request for his services, not the fact he is Christian.   The Christians I know would have served this woman like any other - after all,  my general view of Christian business people is that they abide by their word.
Whoa, right there. He refused to bake a cake. No politics involved, just a decision based on his beliefs...until the aggrieved and allegedly embarrassed homosexuals made a national issue of it. Likely none of us would have heard a peep about any of this if the homosexuals had not made it a political issue.
At least put the onus of politicization where it belongs.

Where in the Constitution would you say we are denied our personal beliefs, and how are the homosexuals any less bigoted in this? They are the ones asserting a right to force the labor and creativity of others to serve them, despite the beliefs of the person they seek to force into servitude.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #853 on: January 07, 2018, 03:47:07 PM »
@Oceander You try again.  I stipulated the difference between a building code and this case.  I answered your question.  AND as was indicated all the way back on page 1 of this thread, your citing of “Oregon law” doesn’t amount to much either if the law (and all laws that violate the freedom of association) are unconstitutional. Now have the intellectual honesty to answer @goatprairie

What you posited is a distinction without a difference.  Being denied goods or services by a public accommodation, such as a retail baker, on the basis of, inter alia, sexual orientation, damages the community and harms the individuals who are discriminated against.  Oregonians, through their duly elected representatives, determined that this harm was sufficiently great that they would make it illegal and impose penalties on a public accommodation that engages in such discrimination. 

It is precisely the same sort of determination that results in GCI circuits being required for outlets that are within a certain distance of a water source in many building codes. 

Therefore, if the one - the building code - is acceptable, then Oregon's law making it illegal for a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is perforce also acceptable under your rubric. 

I know you don’t like it, but logic entails that as a necessary conclusion drawn from your position.

As far as the law being unconstitutional, it’s possible, but I doubt it. The law is facially neutral and the imposition only affects commercial relationships, not purely private conduct, and therefore some minor infringement on the delicate sensibilities of this baker is most likely constitutional. 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 03:49:28 PM by Oceander »

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #854 on: January 07, 2018, 03:52:14 PM »
Little poem by Martin Niemöller comes to mind @HoustonSam

I know @Axeslinger , that's why I'm arguing here in favor of the bakers.  Someone has come for them, so let's say something.  I just think the argument, what we say, needs to be based on facts, not on suppositions and accusations.
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #855 on: January 07, 2018, 03:55:18 PM »
I know @Axeslinger , that's why I'm arguing here in favor of the bakers.  Someone has come for them, so let's say something.  I just think the argument, what we say, needs to be based on facts, not on suppositions and accusations.

Nobody has come for the bakers in the sense of that poem. 

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 35,200
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #856 on: January 07, 2018, 03:59:31 PM »
Nobody has come for the bakers in the sense of that poem.

I guess that depends on how you define "coming for".   To my mind, they most certainly were "come for" on day one.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #857 on: January 07, 2018, 04:05:24 PM »
Well, you are welcome to remain silent about it until someone decides to make that an official government policy and offers you a small window to register your opposition before it takes effect. 

I'm not remaining silent @INVAR , I'm arguing against it.  But I'm arguing against what people have *actually* said and *actually* done.

Look, I'm sure you've never done anything to hurt a homosexual, but Jazzhead basically accuses you of it.  Do you think it makes any logical sense for him to argue about something that you *did not actually do*?

Now if that does make sense, then by all means continue.  But if it doesn't, then why would it make sense for you to argue about something that he did not actually do?
James 1:20

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #858 on: January 07, 2018, 04:12:19 PM »
So why should a builder be forced to build in accordance with an otherwise duly enacted building code?
That's a completely disingenuous argument.

Building codes are enacted to ensure a standard of structural integrity or safety in electrical, plumbing and other systems for the safety of the occupants and those of adjacent buildings.

Not baking a cake is not a public safety issue, unless someone is required to not bake it over health and safety concerns (e coli contamination or some such).
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,119
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #859 on: January 07, 2018, 04:30:07 PM »
What you posited is a distinction without a difference.  Being denied goods or services by a public accommodation, such as a retail baker, on the basis of, inter alia, sexual orientation, damages the community and harms the individuals who are discriminated against.  Oregonians, through their duly elected representatives, determined that this harm was sufficiently great that they would make it illegal and impose penalties on a public accommodation that engages in such discrimination. 

It is precisely the same sort of determination that results in GCI circuits being required for outlets that are within a certain distance of a water source in many building codes. 

Therefore, if the one - the building code - is acceptable, then Oregon's law making it illegal for a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is perforce also acceptable under your rubric. 

I know you don’t like it, but logic entails that as a necessary conclusion drawn from your position.

As far as the law being unconstitutional, it’s possible, but I doubt it. The law is facially neutral and the imposition only affects commercial relationships, not purely private conduct, and therefore some minor infringement on the delicate sensibilities of this baker is most likely constitutional.


@Oceander That’s just lots of words saying the same thing youve said ad nauseum on this thread.  Just because you keep saying that somehow oregon’s legislature did something does not make it constitutional. Just because every other law dictating a commercial relationship has been passed doesn’t make those constitutional either.  I posit that they are not.  Further I posit that when we allow the state to both dictate the terms of a contract and then also force us to enter that contract, we are treading on exceedingly dangerous territory.

Additionally I notice you STILL fail to answer @goatprairie  question.   I wonder why that is?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 04:34:14 PM by Axeslinger »
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,119
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #860 on: January 07, 2018, 04:33:20 PM »
Nobody has come for the bakers in the sense of that poem.

@Oceander
I know you’ve said you don’t agree with fine.  Big deal. That doesn’t negate the fact that the fine has been imposed.
The power of the state, at the ultimate force of a gun, has absolutely come for those bakers.  Where will they end up if they refuse to pay that fine? 
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #861 on: January 07, 2018, 04:37:53 PM »

@Oceander That’s just lots of words saying the same thing you e said ad nauseum on this thread.  Just because you keep saying that somehow oregon’s legislature did something does not make it constitutional. Just because every other law dictating a commercial relationship has been assed doesn’t make those constitutional either.  I posit that they are not.  Further I posit that when we allow the state to both dictate the terms of a contract and then also force us to enter that contract, we are treading on exceedingly dangerous territory.

Additionally I notice you STILL fail to answer @goatprairie  question.   I wonder why that is?


What makes it Constitutional is that the law is facially neutral - it doesn’t target religion - is intended to address an issue that is a significant interest to the government of Oregon - discrimination in public accommodation based on sexual orientation - and does so in a reasonably direct manner.  Therefore, under the Constitution, the fact that applying the statute to the bakers in this case might affect their enjoyment of religious liberty in terms of their ability to refuse certain customers at their retail business is not sufficient to make the statute unconstitutional.  That sort of infringement happens all the time and it is almost never unconstitutional.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #862 on: January 07, 2018, 04:42:44 PM »
@Oceander
I know you’ve said you don’t agree with fine.  Big deal. That doesn’t negate the fact that the fine has been imposed.
The power of the state, at the ultimate force of a gun, has absolutely come for those bakers.  Where will they end up if they refuse to pay that fine?

That's the way I see it @Axeslinger , they've absolutely been "come for", because they wanted to passively, non-violently practice their religious beliefs.  Not compel anyone to those beliefs, not take anything away from anyone, just be true to what they believe.
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #863 on: January 07, 2018, 04:43:22 PM »
@Oceander
I know you’ve said you don’t agree with fine.  Big deal. That doesn’t negate the fact that the fine has been imposed.
The power of the state, at the ultimate force of a gun, has absolutely come for those bakers.  Where will they end up if they refuse to pay that fine? 

The size of the fine is the only real issue they have going for them.  So yes, it is a big deal. 

Wherever they end up, they won’t be dead, and they will be perfectly free to publicly espouse their belief that gay marriage is immoral to all who will listen to them.  The state has not come for them in the sense of that poem.  Heck, if they move to another state that doesn’t have the same law, they could end up right where you want them to be:  free to openly discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,119
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #864 on: January 07, 2018, 04:45:41 PM »
What makes it Constitutional is that the law is facially neutral - it doesn’t target religion - is intended to address an issue that is a significant interest to the government of Oregon - discrimination in public accommodation based on sexual orientation - and does so in a reasonably direct manner.  Therefore, under the Constitution, the fact that applying the statute to the bakers in this case might affect their enjoyment of religious liberty in terms of their ability to refuse certain customers at their retail business is not sufficient to make the statute unconstitutional.  That sort of infringement happens all the time and it is almost never unconstitutional.

@Oceander
Why won’t you answer the question?

Also your public accommodation argument hangs solely on the thread of its inclusion in the civil rights act.  I’m arguing that inclusion was unconstitutional and has been exceedingly damaging to the free market principles of the country.  And the only reason it has not been sufficiently challenged (if at all) is because of the APPEARANCE of racism by any potential plaintiff

Why won’t you answer the question
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #865 on: January 07, 2018, 04:54:56 PM »
@Oceander
Why won’t you answer the question?

Also your public accommodation argument hangs solely on the thread of its inclusion in the civil rights act.  I’m arguing that inclusion was unconstitutional and has been exceedingly damaging to the free market principles of the country.  And the only reason it has not been sufficiently challenged (if at all) is because of the APPEARANCE of racism by any potential plaintiff

Why won’t you answer the question

What question?  Restate it and I’ll consider it. 

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #866 on: January 07, 2018, 04:55:01 PM »
@DCPatriot  your automatic dismissal of @INVAR point diminishes you.  His point is very plainly that the COURSE laid out by this verdict can only lead to one destination.  And as such, that COURSE  should be deviated from by all liberty loving Americans. Put simply: when the state can dictate the terms of our contracts AND whether we enter into those contracts or not, then the path towards totalitarianism is set.
Unfortunately, that precedent has been set by the ACA. People can be punished under the original terms of the ACA for NOT buying insurance which is required to cover treatment that is against their religious beliefs. By purchasing such coverage they are funding the very practices which they object to (abortion, in particular).

I heartily object to such coercion, especially in the face of religious beliefs.



How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #867 on: January 07, 2018, 04:56:15 PM »
You have to understand in these threads that DCP takes the stance of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...he doesn't like most of the people taking the opposite stance of Jazzy...so he's siding with Jazzy.
Yes. Desperation doth make strange bedfellows...
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #868 on: January 07, 2018, 04:58:09 PM »

Once people demand to marry and have sex with their pets and demand recognition and approval by society of their perverted behavior, you're perfectly fine with using the state to punish a business and persons if they refuse to produce goods and services that celebrate animal marriage and sex?


Just wait until they make reservations to take their 'wife' or 'husband' out for dinner on their anniversary.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #869 on: January 07, 2018, 04:59:42 PM »
What question?  Restate it and I’ll consider it. 

@Axeslinger

Well?

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #870 on: January 07, 2018, 05:11:10 PM »
HS,  I've enjoyed your participation on these threads.   I believe you argue fairly and seek to engage folks like me with whom you disagree with substance and logic rather than name-calling.   And no,  I am not aware that you have said anything disparaging toward homosexuals - I was just pointing out, using your post as a pivot point,  that ISIS is merely an extreme example of religious zealotry,  and INVAR is a good illustration that Christians are just as capable of hubris, intolerance, and the rhetoric of violence.   

I hope I've answered your questions about my position on this issue to your satisfaction;  if not,  feel free to follow up and I'll try my best to respond.

Thank you @Jazzhead for your acknowledgement of my attempts to argue fairly.  I'm sure I have failed at times, but I think we all benefit by distinguishing the argument from the advocate, and the argument from its object.

The honest answer is no, I do not think you've answered my questions.  You are under no obligation to answer them to my satisfaction, but I would appreciate your response to my re-post of them in 766.
James 1:20

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #871 on: January 07, 2018, 05:23:31 PM »
What you posited is a distinction without a difference.  Being denied goods or services by a public accommodation, such as a retail baker, on the basis of, inter alia, sexual orientation, damages the community and harms the individuals who are discriminated against.  Oregonians, through their duly elected representatives, determined that this harm was sufficiently great that they would make it illegal and impose penalties on a public accommodation that engages in such discrimination. 

It is precisely the same sort of determination that results in GCI circuits being required for outlets that are within a certain distance of a water source in many building codes. 

Therefore, if the one - the building code - is acceptable, then Oregon's law making it illegal for a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is perforce also acceptable under your rubric. 

I know you don’t like it, but logic entails that as a necessary conclusion drawn from your position.

As far as the law being unconstitutional, it’s possible, but I doubt it. The law is facially neutral and the imposition only affects commercial relationships, not purely private conduct, and therefore some minor infringement on the delicate sensibilities of this baker is most likely constitutional.
Not even close.
The damages from a bridge or building collapse, for instance, just do not compare to hurt feelings.  You are assuming the feelings of the community are hurt, those of the average person walking down the street. Not so. The feelings hurt belong to those refused, if that even occurred and this wasn't really an attempt to win lawsuit roulette in front of a sympathetic court.
The damage inflicted to any person from the failure of a structure is random, affects anyone regardless of any other factors, and does present a real danger to the public at large, not just a couple of people who sought a service.

I remain suspicious that the homosexuals screened possible service providers with the intent of being refused in order to claim grievance and injury and collect for their hurt feeling$.

If the community saw the bakers as some sort of hazard to the health and safety of the neighborhood, all they had to do was not go there and buy goods, and the situation would have been resolved by the marketplace.

The broader reaching aspect of this is that nationwide there will be people who so resent the behaviour of those who force or punish service providers that there will be some backlash affecting businesses operated by homosexuals, so while there may be a couple of 'winners' at lawsuit roulette, in the end the overall effect may well be negative. How's that for protecting the 'community'?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #872 on: January 07, 2018, 05:23:59 PM »
And I do.

Edit:   But please don't misunderstand me.   I don't believe Christian business people are bigots.  To the contrary,  I've more than once sought out the services of folks who have advertised the fact that they are Christians.  Christian business people, in my experience,  tend to be honest and fair in their dealings.

Thank you @Jazzhead , I acknowledge that you are not identifying Christian businesses as bigots.  Like you, I often seek them out.

Quote
Yes, I've called the Oregon baker a bigot, and believe that he is.  But that's because of his actions to humiliate his customer and politicize her request for his services, not the fact he is Christian.   The Christians I know would have served this woman like any other - after all,  my general view of Christian business people is that they abide by their word.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of what happened.  Here I'll rely on the statement of facts posted by @Oceander in 532, and I acknowledge that if other facts can be cited in addition to these, then I might be forced to re-consider my criticism of your position.  According to Oceander :

Quote
The complainants, Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, met in 2004 and had long considered themselves a couple. In 2012, they decided to marry.

As part of the wedding planning, Rachel and her mother, Cheryl, attended a Portland bridal show.  Melissa Klein had a booth at that bridal show, and she advertised wedding cakes made by her bakery business, Sweetcakes.  Rachel and Cheryl visited the booth and told Melissa that they would like to order a cake from her.  Rachel and Cheryl were already familiar with Sweetcakes; two years earlier, Sweetcakes had designed, created, and decorated a wedding cake for Cheryl’s wedding, paid for by Rachel.

After the bridal show, on January 17, 2013, Rachel and Cheryl visited the Sweetcakes bakery shop in Gresham for a cake-tasting appointment, intending to order a wedding cake. At the time of the appointment, Melissa was at home providing childcare, so her husband, Aaron, conducted the tasting.

During that tasting, Aaron asked for the names of the bride and groom. Rachel told him that there were two brides and that their names were Rachel and Laurel. At that point, Aaron stated that he was sorry, but that Sweetcakes did not make wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of his and Melissa’s religious convictions. Rachel began crying, and Cheryl took her by the arm and walked her out of the shop. On the way to their car, Rachel became “hysterical” and kept apologizing to her mother, feeling that she had humiliated her.

Cheryl consoled Rachel once they were in their car, and she assured her that they would find someone to make the wedding cake.  Cheryl drove a short distance away, but then turned around and returned to Sweetcakes. This time, Cheryl reentered the shop by herself to talk with Aaron.  During their conversation, Cheryl told Aaron that she had previously shared his thinking about homosexuality, but that her “truth had changed” as a result of having “two gay children.”  In response, Aaron quoted a Bible passage from the Book of Leviticus, stating, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”  Cheryl left and returned to the car, where Rachel had remained, “holding [her] head in her hands, just bawling.”

When Cheryl returned to the car, she told Rachel that Aaron had called her “an abomination,” which further upset Rachel. Rachel later said that “t made me feel like they were saying God made a mistake when he made me, that I wasn’t supposed to be, that I wasn’t supposed to love or be loved or have a family or live a good life and one day go to heaven.”

There is no evidence in this statement that the baker took any actions to humiliate the customer or politicize her request.  In fact the customer took action by returning to the bakery after the baker had, according to this statement, apologetically refused the request.  Jazzhead I will ask you specifically to cite additional facts consistent with your characterization, or explain why your characterization is consistent with the facts provided by Oceander.
James 1:20

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #873 on: January 07, 2018, 05:30:12 PM »
Well then do you think you're winning him to Christ the way this is going?

He is not interested and made that plain some time ago.

He has rejected the truth when it was posted plain from the scriptures.  His view of Christ is not from scripture - but from his own perception and worldview that he equates as morally superior to the plain words written and inspired in the Word of God that he has rejected.   He has stated he wants nothing to do with the admonition of Christianity that I have presented or advocated, declaring it evil, bigoted, intolerant and hateful.  He has fully rejected the admonition Jesus Himself stated in Luke 6:46, and warned about in Matthew 5:19, and instead preaches the advocacy of behavior that leads to eternal death and not life (I Corinthians 6:9-10).  Were this a congregation - after efforts failed to correct his advocacy of abomination and sexual immorality - he would have been put out of the church until such time as he became repentant of pushing evil behavior as acceptable in the sight of God, which is totally contrary to scripture.

Light has no part with someone preaching darkness and the fruits of which will earn eternal death.

He believes in the wisdom of this world, and not the truth as revealed in God's Word which he has steadfastly rejected and accused followers of hubris for even citing or explaining biblical text and proof he willfully ignored and waved aside, asserting we have no authority to know the Mind of God.  Even when that Mind is plainly Written, being rejected by the very one whom you think I can win to Christ by finding common ground neither of us possess.

A witness was given.  What he decides to do with it is up to him, but leading others to follow an advocacy of behavior that leads to eternal death requires such false preaching to be confronted and corrected - whether or not the scales ever fall from his eyes.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #874 on: January 07, 2018, 05:30:31 PM »
The size of the fine is the only real issue they have going for them.  So yes, it is a big deal. 

Wherever they end up, they won’t be dead, and they will be perfectly free to publicly espouse their belief that gay marriage is immoral to all who will listen to them.  The state has not come for them in the sense of that poem.  Heck, if they move to another state that doesn’t have the same law, they could end up right where you want them to be:  free to openly discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation.
The size of the fine is irrelevant. The existence of the fine is. Even if the fine was only one dollar, the principle that people have a Right to their religious beliefs and to practice the same without compelling others or injuring them has been breached.

There are other bakers in the area, let these people seek their services instead. Had the baker simply asserted he was too busy (and lied) there would have been no case.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf