The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: rangerrebew on September 10, 2017, 02:42:02 pm
-
Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court
20 states, 86 Congress members, dozens of lawyers, family groups, nearly 500 creative pros back Jack Phillips
Published: 2 days ago
The list of defenders of Colorado baker Jack Phillips in his case against Colorado’s order that he promote same-sex marriage in violation of his faith reads like a who’s who of America’s leaders.
First, the Department of Justice has come down on Phillips’ side in his dispute with the state over his decision to not create a wedding cake for a couple.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/tidal-wave-of-support-for-colorado-baker-hits-supreme-court/#FsQje7sqAp58EsMK.99
-
First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble. One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business. And if one has a right, one also has the opposite. If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak. So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.
Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional. They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.
-
First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble. One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business. And if one has a right, one also has the opposite. If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak. So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.
Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional. They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/hollywood.jpg)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg)
-
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/hollywood.jpg)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg)
That twists the issue. The business would sell products to anyone. They refused to create a product (special order) that went against their religious beliefs.
-
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/hollywood.jpg)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg)
Sexual orientation does not equate to race.
-
First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble. One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business. And if one has a right, one also has the opposite. If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak. So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.
Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional. They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.
If the Court rules incorrectly here and decides it is above what the majority of the citizens want, it will further erode its credibility. At some point, people or the other branches will simply ignore its rulings, imperiling any authority of the court.
It got real close by federal judges deciding they were better at providing for this country's defense than the Constitutionally mandated President. I was frankly surprised that Trump did not just ignore the decisions regarding his visa exclusion. He has equal authority to faithfully execute his Constitutional duty as the Court does - in fact, I believe he has even more as he is required to be head of the military, not some court.
It would not have been a constitutional crisis which he initiated. It would have been a constitutional crisis initiated by Judicial.
-
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/hollywood.jpg)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg)
What I wish (and appears my wish is granted) is that the courts cannot order me to participate in a celebration of a behavior I find abhorrent.
-
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
[...]
Correct.
Forcing people to do something against their will is a form of slavery. Further, if the government wants a house to be rented to a particular group against the owner's wishes, there are provisions in the Constitution that allow the government to pay a fair price an take the property.
-
Correct.
Forcing people to do something against their will is a form of slavery. Further, if the government wants a house to be rented to a particular group against the owner's wishes, there are provisions in the Constitution that allow the government to pay a fair price an take the property.
You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law. Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing).
-
You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law. Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing).
You present a totally convoluted attempt at moral equivalency.
If someone makes a promise (contract law) they are willing participants thus your analogy fails.
Trespass laws enforce the right of the property owner to determine how their property is going to be used. So again, your analogy fails.
But lets take a closer look at your last example. If I as the property owner have the right to protect the use of my property via trespass laws, what gives the government the right to then take away that right without compensation for the seizing of that property?
Nothing.
If the government is going to exercise the rights of the property owner of a house, a car or a business and dictate how those rights are to be expressed, the government has de facto taken that property. Now the government can do that. However it OWES the owner of that property just compensation under the Constitution.
-
First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble. One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business. And if one has a right, one also has the opposite. If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak. So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.
Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional. They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.
QFT.
As a business owner, either I have freedom of association, or I am not freely conducting business.
If I don't want to do business with you, and tell you to GTFO my property, for any reason other than breach of contract, there should be *no* recourse.
Even in matters of race, which is the beginning of all of this.
Let the market decide.
If a guy want's to hang a sign saying no XXX and XXX allowed, then so be it.
It is certainly asinine to do so, as another business will certainly rise up to serve those offended, but the point in order is that the businessman necessarily has the right to make his own decisions.
It is an astonishingly bad decision in most cases, but especially, where religious convictions are in focus (debriding the strict language against feds making any law) there is no way a man should be forced to work against his own beliefs.
-
You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law. Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing).
What is the 'promise' that the baker in question made?
Be specific. We want to know what it is that was promised. You are advocating that some type of contract was made by a guy opening a store with goods.
-
Sexual orientation does not equate to race.
Exactly. Race is simply a state of being. You are black, white, etc 24/7/365. You can do, or not do anything, be dead or alive, and still be that race.
You are only 'gay' when it comes to the bedroom. It is an act, or a choice, but it's not a culture or a state of being. These bakers didn't refuse to serve them, just protested a particular act that they deeply don't agree with.
If they must serve them for their wedding, then they must serve Satanist or any other religious marriage, or some 32 y/o guy marrying a 16 y/o girl, or two 'transsexuals' getting married.
That is a huge difference between that an not serving someone because of their race.
-
What is the 'promise' that the baker in question made?
Be specific. We want to know what it is that was promised. You are advocating that some type of contract was made by a guy opening a store with goods.
The prospective customers were not refused ordinary services. Any of the regularly made products were available to them. Ordinary baked goods. The Bakers also created one-off cakes for birthdays, special occasions and traditional marriages.
What the offended folks wanted was a one-off creation celebrating a same-sex "marriage".
That is a service the bakers did not provide, because they have a religious objection to that premise.
No promise to provide such a product is expressed nor implied, imho. Creative efforts should be at the discretion of the person creating. They are a form of speech and should not be subject to coercion.
Would you force a pro-life printer to print posters celebrating abortion?
-
That twists the issue. The business would sell products to anyone. They refused to create a product (special order) that went against their religious beliefs.
It's a business, not a church. If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.
-
It's a business, not a church. If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.
A printer advertises printing. Would you compel them to print something they found offensive?
Creating a wedding cake isn't just another batch of cookies, it is an art.
Would you compel a painter to paint pictures/images they found offensive?
Would you force a writer to laud that which they found abhorrent?
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?
If the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech (and by extension, expression), then there is no way someone can be forced to lend even tacit approval to that which they object.
They have a right to not express themselves as well.
-
A printer advertises printing. Would you compel them to print something they found offensive?
Creating a wedding cake isn't just another batch of cookies, it is an art.
Would you compel a painter to paint pictures/images they found offensive?
Would you force a writer to laud that which they found abhorrent?
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?
If the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech (and by extension, expression), then there is no way someone can be forced to lend even tacit approval to that which they object.
They have a right to not express themselves as well.
I believe the 5th Circuit ruled that words on such products could not be compelled. I'm sure that symbols could be included in that.
If I were the baker I'd bake them a plain cake with icing of the color they want, and stop there.
-
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?
Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers. There's nothing complicated here. They can certainly decline to make wedding cakes (or, more specifically, custom wedding cakes). I believe that this is what the Colorado baker in fact does - he states on his website that he won't take orders for customized wedding cakes.
-
Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers. There's nothing complicated here. They can certainly decline to make wedding cakes (or, more specifically, custom wedding cakes). I believe that this is what the Colorado baker in fact does - he states on his website that he won't take orders for customized wedding cakes.
But he didn't say he'd necessarily take ANY order. I would wager that after being threatened with loss of assets over simply standing up for his beliefs, he won't make any wedding cakes at this time, won't take ANY orders.
That's wrong, though,because his ability to create freely has been curtailed by the tyranny of people who could have simply found some other baker to bake their cake. They have robbed him of a creative outlet and revenue through their actions, not to mention cost him considerably in defending his freedom to believe and create as he sees fit.
This flies in the face of the First Amendment in both the freedom of religion (the basis for his refusal) and the freedom of speech (expression). I hope the baker wins, and what's more, I hope the Supremes open the way for him to recover damages.
You, sir, are one who would compel a carpenter to build the scaffold he is to be hanged on.
-
Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers.
I advertise computer services, and I discriminate among my customers all the time. For any number of reasons.
One particularly was a laptop that I took in. Once I opened it, I found a pentagram and several wiccan symbols. I closed it up threw it on the shelf, and called them to come pick it up.
I ain't gonna work on that. Let em go find a satanic computer tech. No fault, no foul.
-
This flies in the face of the First Amendment in both the freedom of religion (the basis for his refusal) and the freedom of speech (expression). I hope the baker wins, and what's more, I hope the Supremes open the way for him to recover damages.
You, sir, are one who would compel a carpenter to build the scaffold he is to be hanged on.
What loss of freedom? He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes. All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers. His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.
-
What loss of freedom? He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes. All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers. His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.
'All the community requires' is not a sufficient legal test.
-
You have the right to refuse service based on a variety of factors. No shirt, no shows, no service. A Muslim bakery can refuse to make a cake for a Zionist organization. A Jewish bakery can do the same for a Nazi organization. I'm sure a liberal would believe they can refuse MAGA products.
They didn't refuse because the couple were gay. They refused because they opposed that type of political entity. If the couple had been two hetero men, it still would have been refused.
-
What loss of freedom? He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes. All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers. His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.
His freedom to believe as he believes is at stake. His freedom to NOT produce something which conflicts with his religious beliefs is at stake. I believe the freedom to NOT say something is just as essential to the First Amendment as the freedom to do it--in fact, that was the basis the atheists used to remove prayer from schools.
So he has the freedom to NOT create as much as the freedom TO create, based on his beliefs.
It isn't kicking someone off a bus, or making them use the other water fountain. This is a private business, and doing private deals with people to create that which the baker saw fit to create. If, for any reason, and especially a religious one, he saw a reason to NOT bake a cake, he has the RIGHT to refuse to do so.
Suppose the couple had been Satanists, and wanted a cake reflecting those beliefs, would you force the Christian baker to make it?
Or would you force a Jewish Baker bake cakes for neo-Nazi get-togethers?
-
What loss of freedom? He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes. All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers. His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.
Your expansion of "public accommodation" to include all business and professional activity puts your view of civil rights law at variance with not just the First, but the Thirteenth Amendment. Accepting commissions to produce works of art is not a public accommodation. Custom decorated cakes may not be high art, but they are works of art nonetheless.
The printmaker who refuses a commission to design poster with the message "Kill Whitey" is not discriminating on the basis of race against the black man who requested the poster. The printmaker who will sell no posters to black customers is. I leave you to fill in the analogy with the message of cake "celebrating" what the baker's religiously informed conscience regarded as an abomination and his willingness to sell the same customer a birthday cake or an undecorated cake.
-
When you engage in commercial activities you necessarily give up some of the freedoms you enjoy in your private personal life.
-
When you engage in commercial activities you necessarily give up some of the freedoms you enjoy in your private personal life.
You do indeed. Yet you retain your religious freedom, and the freedom to turn down work, for whatever reason. Maybe you want to go on vacation. Maybe your sister is getting married. Maybe you just don't wanna.
-
What loss of freedom? He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes. All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers. His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.
This 'community' crap is just being made up.
Sounds like a Hillary Clinton "It Takes A Village" nonsense.
The Constitution of this country and of the various states is not a 'community'.
Liberals try to always spin their way to making up things that have no basis.
-
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?
I want a cake made out of horseshit. I wonder if who you responded to would make it for me if he ran a bakery?
That's what he's offering anyway.
-
If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.
I will discriminate with prejudice anyone I refuse to serve in my business. If you think you can empower government to put a gun to my head to force me to labor and celebrate wickedness, that makes you an aberrant tyrant unequalled on these shores since Pilgrims landed here.
-
When you engage in commercial activities you necessarily give up some of the freedoms you enjoy in your private personal life.
Please quote the section of the Constitution that authorizes the government to deny freedoms based on commercial activities.
-
Please quote the section of the Constitution that authorizes the government to deny freedoms based on commercial activities.
The Commerce Clause, empowering the Congress to set rules for the orderly and fair conduct of commerce. You can't claim "religious freedom" to cheat your customers, or to discriminate against them because of their race, etc. The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
-
The Commerce Clause, empowering the Congress to set rules for the orderly and fair conduct of commerce. You can't claim "religious freedom" to cheat your customers, or to discriminate against them because of their race, etc. The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
But businesses do discriminate all the time on various criteria. So some groups can be discriminated against, some not. How is that not a violation of the 14th amendment?
And 'can the religious crap' is pure unadulerated hypocrisy. You're telling one group that they can get govt approval to call themselves a minority grievance group, and impose their morality and worldview on someone else that doesn't agree with them. So why can't they can their religious crap and quit being a bully?
-
The Commerce Clause, empowering the Congress to set rules for the orderly and fair conduct of commerce. You can't claim "religious freedom" to cheat your customers, or to discriminate against them because of their race, etc. The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
This is where you are in error. the commerce clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” It does NOT giver Congress the power to regulate private transactions between citizens.
-
QFT.
As a business owner, either I have freedom of association, or I am not freely conducting business.
If I don't want to do business with you, and tell you to GTFO my property, for any reason other than breach of contract, there should be *no* recourse.
Even in matters of race, which is the beginning of all of this.
Let the market decide.
If a guy want's to hang a sign saying no XXX and XXX allowed, then so be it.
It is certainly asinine to do so, as another business will certainly rise up to serve those offended, but the point in order is that the businessman necessarily has the right to make his own decisions.
It is an astonishingly bad decision in most cases, but especially, where religious convictions are in focus (debriding the strict language against feds making any law) there is no way a man should be forced to work against his own beliefs.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
You do indeed. Yet you retain your religious freedom, and the freedom to turn down work, for whatever reason. Maybe you want to go on vacation. Maybe your sister is getting married. Maybe you just don't wanna.
When I was in business I turned down work all of the time for a variety of reasons chief among them being I could not do all the work people wanted me to do.
-
This is where you are in error. the commerce clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” It does NOT giver Congress the power to regulate private transactions between citizens.
:amen: Thank you!
-
I am surprised at the people who believe that the rights of a group supersede the rights of an individual.
-
I am surprised at the people who believe that the rights of a group supersede the rights of an individual.
I'm not at all surprised! That movement has been at the root of our problems in this country for a LONG time now!
-
When I was in business I turned down work all of the time for a variety of reasons chief among them being I could not do all the work people wanted me to do.
Exactly as you should be able to do with your own business, that you did indeed 'build'.
Case in point.... in the RV service business and specifically the mobile service business....
there is a certain segment of customers that always seem to try to con, want to scam and often manage to skip out on paying for services rendered. I believe the correct term would be "gypsies". Denying them services is a really good business choice.... since it inevitably (usually) results in your business losing money via their dishonesty. It's not racial. It's not religious. It's just a fact of life.
-
This is where you are in error. the commerce clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” It does NOT giver Congress the power to regulate private transactions between citizens.
"Private transactions between citizens" are not at issue here, but rather commercial transactions, in the stream of interstate commerce. The Constitution most certainly permits the peoples' elected representatives to pass laws that regulate such commerce, and curb your "freedom" to cheat, lie or discriminate with respect to such dealings.
-
The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
This is how wars are started.
-
When I was in business I turned down work all of the time for a variety of reasons chief among them being I could not do all the work people wanted me to do.
That's not unlawful discrimination. The arbitrary denial of service on the basis of race, sex, etc. is unlawful. Stick to the topic. Bake the cake.
-
Exactly as you should be able to do with your own business, that you did indeed 'build'.
Case in point.... in the RV service business and specifically the mobile service business....
there is a certain segment of customers that always seem to try to con, want to scam and often manage to skip out on paying for services rendered. I believe the correct term would be "gypsies". Denying them services is a really good business choice.... since it inevitably (usually) results in your business losing money via their dishonesty. It's not racial. It's not religious. It's just a fact of life.
@XenaLee
The simple FACT is that it is impossible for one to survive on this planet without discriminating!
-
This is how wars are started.
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
-
That's not unlawful discrimination. The arbitrary denial of service on the basis of race, sex, etc. is unlawful. Stick to the topic. Bake the cake.
Then you are violating the 14th amendment. Either all are the same or what you advocate is a national code of morality and a caste system, with the FedGov playing God and determining the righteous and unrighteous ones. You can't say people can't act on their religious beliefs, then turn around and force your own religion on them.
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
Liberal bullcrap. The greatest deaths from war come from the Far East and have nothing to do with religion.
-
@XenaLee
The simple FACT is that it is impossible for one to survive on this planet without discriminating!
Of course. It's a product of using what God gave us.... a brain, discernment and common sense.... none of which liberals and/or 'some' that pretend not to be liberals seem to have....lol.
-
Liberal bullcrap. The greatest deaths from war come from the Far East and have nothing to do with religion.
Not to mention... the millions of deaths that came from communism and communist dictators throughout the world.... who are vehemently anti-Christian, anti-religion and ergo, anti-God.
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
Not sure about this; Communism killed at least 100,000,000 in the last century.
Islam has killed millions, Christianity had their crusades alright. Still, it should not be lumped together with Islam.
-
Of course. It's a product of using what God gave us.... a brain, discernment and common sense.... none of which liberals and/or 'some' that pretend not to be liberals seem to have....lol.
Well said! 888high58888
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
I'll be waiting for you to try and enforce that idea.
-
I think Mao and Stalin each are listed at killing, well, it's a very high number. I think in even saying Communism killed 100,000,000 is understating it. They are atheists as well; might as well just say atheists killed these people.
They lump together, we should too.
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/
Bakers in CO can refuse to put Bible verses on a cake, but Phillips has to attend re-education classes. This is un-American.
-
Not to mention... the millions of deaths that came from communism and communist dictators throughout the world.... who are vehemently anti-Christian, anti-religion and ergo, anti-God.
Yes, it's amazing how the religion hating atheists are the biggest sticklers about correctly following the collectivist dogma and doctrine, or die.
-
Not sure about this; Communism killed at least 100,000,000 in the last century.
Islam has killed millions, Christianity had their crusades alright. Still, it should not be lumped together with Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
-
Yes, it's amazing how the religion hating atheists are the biggest sticklers about correctly following the collectivist dogma and doctrine, or die.
The very impetus that motivates our resident Leftist as well. He just tries to hide it within clever and reasonable-sounding arguments while he champions the state putting a gun to your head while ordering you to "Bake the effing cake!" and whatever else he empowers the state to do to force collectivist dogma and doctrine.
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/
Bakers in CO can refuse to put Bible verses on a cake, but Phillips has to attend re-education classes. This is un-American.
Perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of the liberals position on this issue. Your belief, your morality is ok if you don't want Bible verses on a cake, but you must bake that cake if that person is gay, or transsexual. The govt picks our morality and beliefs, and gives certain groups morality favor over others, all in the name of the 14th amendment.
Yet the result is more unequal while the State plays Church.
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
Comments like this, along with attempts to define conservatism for others, is what has people looking for the name of the poster then walk off shaking their heads. **nononono*
-
Perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of the liberals position on this issue. Your belief, your morality is ok if you don't want Bible verses on a cake, but you must bake that cake if that person is gay, or transsexual. The govt picks our morality and beliefs, and gives certain groups morality favor over others, all in the name of the 14th amendment.
Yet the result is more unequal while the State plays Church.
Bingo. The state BECOMES the church - using the force of the color of law to tell you whether or not your beliefs are permitted or restricted. Failure to comply results in punishment - to loud cheers and applause of tyrants like our resident Leftist.
Like I originally said, this kind of crap is how bloodbaths are started - or a people are subjugated with a boot on their necks and every thought monitored for obeisance to the state.
-
The very impetus that motivates our resident Leftist as well. He just tries to hide it within clever and reasonable-sounding arguments while he champions the state putting a gun to your head while ordering you to "Bake the effing cake!" and whatever else he empowers the state to do to force collectivist dogma and doctrine.
That's the hypocrisy of the leftist position. Talk about Jesus and Christian compassion all you want as long as it's liberals spending billions on a wasteful bureaucratic social program, but don't you dare not bake that cake for that gay person. But you can discriminate as long as it's not one of the govt approved grievance groups, or you are professing a morality that is not counter to what the govt allows.
That is the heart of this debate, and the liberals don't want to acknowledge it. The govt picks and chooses who is equal and not under the 14th amendment, as the State plays the Church and determines our national morality, and those righteous and unrighteous under it.
-
You do indeed. Yet you retain your religious freedom, and the freedom to turn down work, for whatever reason. Maybe you want to go on vacation. Maybe your sister is getting married. Maybe you just don't wanna.
No, you don't, not without qualification.
-
Not sure about this; Communism killed at least 100,000,000 in the last century.
Islam has killed millions, Christianity had their crusades alright. Still, it should not be lumped together with Islam.
Not to mention the historical fact.... that the crusades only occurred because of and as a result of radical Islam trying to take over other cultures and nations.
-
No, you don't, not without qualification.
@Oceander
Who says I don't? And who's going to stop me?
-
Then you are violating the 14th amendment. Either all are the same or what you advocate is a national code of morality and a caste system, with the FedGov playing God and determining the righteous and unrighteous ones. You can't say people can't act on their religious beliefs, then turn around and force your own religion on them.
Stop playing the drama queen. It's simple as can be - exercise complete freedom in deciding whether or not you'll bake wedding cakes. If you do, then serve the customers who've come in for the service you've said you'd provide.
It's really just a matter of being decent and honorable. Even Christians can manage that, I would think.
-
Stop playing the drama queen. It's simple as can be - exercise complete freedom in deciding whether or not you'll bake wedding cakes. If you do, then serve the customers who've come in for the service you've said you'd provide.
It's really just a matter of being decent and honorable. Even Christians can manage that, I would think.
I refuse to celebrate wickedness such as adultery, abortion and homosexuality with the business services I advertise that I provide. I refuse to create any marketing vehicles that support or aid Democrats and the Leftist agenda.
Now, if meddlesome busybody tyrants want to put a gun to my head to force me to do so, this is why we have a Second Amendment.
-
Stop playing the drama queen. It's simple as can be - exercise complete freedom in deciding whether or not you'll bake wedding cakes. If you do, then serve the customers who've come in for the service you've said you'd provide.
It's really just a matter of being decent and honorable. Even Christians can manage that, I would think.
Fine, advertise as a provider of heterosexual marriage wedding cakes.
-
Stop playing the drama queen. It's simple as can be - exercise complete freedom in deciding whether or not you'll bake wedding cakes. If you do, then serve the customers who've come in for the service you've said you'd provide.
It's really just a matter of being decent and honorable. Even Christians can manage that, I would think.
Obviously you don't like what I say because it brings out the hypocritical inconsistency of your position. You're not going to pull your little liberal framing garbage on me. This is a broad issue that isn't just about not baking a wedding cake for gays.
By that token then a vendor has no right to express their morality, but their customers can express any morality they choose, as long as the are a govt protected grievance group. Those that aren't don't get that right. A very unequal application of the 14th amendment, and a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
Which is even more egregious in the case of transsexuals and public accomodation. Transsexualism is a BELIEF with no basis in science. Yet the govt has chosen to not only honor that BELIEF but exclude other beliefs and identities as not having the same rights. For example those who identify as transspecies, transracial, or transageist. Furthermore anyone who's BELIEF disagrees with a transsexual's BELIEF is given a lesser status of rights, even there is no science to back a transsexual's claims.
That extends to wedding services such as cakes. By your logic me as the baker should honor two transsexuals' marriage to each other, even though it is nothing but a BELIEF, yet somehow that BELIEF overrides my BELIEF.
How exactly is that not govt sponsored inequality and the State playing Church and deciding morality?
-
Fine, advertise as a provider of heterosexual marriage wedding cakes.
That is illegal and discriminatory according to the radical hedonist Leftists, and using the government force one to celebrate deviancy in the name of diversity and inclusiveness is the "law of the land" according to them.
Which is why I said - wars and bloodbaths happen when such people push for the punishment of those who refuse to comply.
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
Ummm, no. Communism has killed more people in the last century that have ever been killed "in the name of God". You really don't believe this, do you?
-
Ummm, no. Communism has killed more people in the last century that have ever been killed "in the name of God". You really don't believe this, do you?
The bible is abhorrent to him outside of whatever he wants to pick and choose off the Sermon on the Mount buffet table. His real faith is in Social Justice by the hands of the secular state.
-
Ummm, no. Communism has killed more people in the last century that have ever been killed "in the name of God". You really don't believe this, do you?
That's your defense of religion? That communism is worse? *****rollingeyes*****
-
The bible is abhorrent to him outside of whatever he wants to pick and choose off the Sermon on the Mount buffet table. His real faith is in Social Justice by the hands of the secular state.
No, my faith is in Jesus Christ. Not in your sick vision of religious tribalism and violence.
-
That's your defense of religion? That communism is worse? *****rollingeyes*****
It would seem you're being a drama queen while ignoring the much more factually worse problem.
-
No, my faith is in Jesus Christ. Not in your sick vision of religious tribalism and violence.
So we can have religious belief if it is govt approved religious belief, such as supporting some new entitlement program for the poor? But we can't if it's something that disagrees with the govt approved morality, like baking cakes for gay weddings.
-
That's your defense of religion? That communism is worse? *****rollingeyes*****
Really, Jazzhead? No, that was my response to your silly statement.
-
By that token then a vendor has no right to express their morality, but their customers can express any morality they choose
More needless dramatics. The baker can freely choose whether to make and sell wedding cakes. If he advertises such wares to the public, then the decent and honorable thing to do is to provide the service he's advertised to provide. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
-
More needless dramatics. The baker can freely choose whether to make and sell wedding cakes. If he advertises such wares to the public, then the decent and honorable thing to do is to provide the service he's advertised to provide. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
@Jazzhead
Once again you seek to force your beliefs on others.
-
That is illegal and discriminatory according to the radical hedonist Leftists, and using the government force one to celebrate deviancy in the name of diversity and inclusiveness is the "law of the land" according to them.
Which is why I said - wars and bloodbaths happen when such people push for the punishment of those who refuse to comply.
Yeah, in the meantime in *my* Realville, I have full electricity after the hurricane, but my neighbors are still out. They are hooked in to our well now so have running water in the house and the just came over and took three 5 gallons cans of gas to be able to continue to run their generator for a couple more days without driving all over God's green earth to find a gas station that is working and has gas. *My* Realville doesn't have time for some bullshit, made up grievance over a stupid wedding cake that if one person won't provide 5 others will. People need to get a damn grip.
-
More needless dramatics. The baker can freely choose whether to make and sell wedding cakes. If he advertises such wares to the public, then the decent and honorable thing to do is to provide the service he's advertised to provide. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
As long as they are a govt approved grievance group. Only those can the baker not discriminate against. Anyone not on the list he can. How exactly does that square with the 14th amendment?
-
Yeah, in the meantime in *my* Realville, I have full electricity after the hurricane, but my neighbors are still out. They are hooked in to our well now so have running water in the house and the just came over and took three 5 gallons cans of gas to be able to continue to run their generator for a couple more days without driving all over God's green earth to find a gas station that is working and has gas. *My* Realville doesn't have time for some bullshit, made up grievance over a stupid wedding cake that if one person won't provide 5 others will. People need to get a damn grip.
@RoosGirl
It was never about the cake. If it were then they would have just gone somewhere else. No this was about forcing their beliefs on everyone else. They probably did a lot of research on bakeries and friendly judges before trying to buy the cake and the associated services.
-
Yeah, in the meantime in *my* Realville, I have full electricity after the hurricane, but my neighbors are still out. They are hooked in to our well now so have running water in the house and the just came over and took three 5 gallons cans of gas to be able to continue to run their generator for a couple more days without driving all over God's green earth to find a gas station that is working and has gas. *My* Realville doesn't have time for some bullshit, made up grievance over a stupid wedding cake that if one person won't provide 5 others will. People need to get a damn grip.
Amen!
-
That's your defense of religion? That communism is worse? *****rollingeyes*****
No, you said religion killed more people than any other cause. When you abuse statistics like that you can count on people with pocket calculators showing up to expose your BS.
-
The Commerce Clause, empowering the Congress to set rules for the orderly and fair conduct of commerce. You can't claim "religious freedom" to cheat your customers, or to discriminate against them because of their race, etc. The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
Get back to me when your halal butcher sells pork chops.
-
Get back to me when your halal butcher sells pork chops.
I'd settle for imitation bacon bits.
(http://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/c54aca57-5aca-4f92-8619-32d0efe91896_1.8279cbba6c83376846448ad50c582d7c.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF)
-
The Commerce Clause, empowering the Congress to set rules for the orderly and fair conduct of commerce. You can't claim "religious freedom" to cheat your customers, or to discriminate against them because of their race, etc. The community (by its elected representatives) is perfectly able to constrict your "freedom" with respect to commercial activities.
If you advertise the cake, and your customer asks for what you advertise to provide, then just bake it and can the religious crap.
@Jazzhead
But of course its not just a cake. In this case the baker offered other products which were refused.
No it was a wedding cake. A wedding cake that included the services of delivering and setting up. Providing support for the wedding and participating in the wedding.
And fortunately we are free to exercise our religion despite your hatred of all things Christian.
-
More needless dramatics. The baker can freely choose whether to make and sell wedding cakes. If he advertises such wares to the public, then the decent and honorable thing to do is to provide the service he's advertised to provide. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
Back it up a notch, peaches. The decent and honorable thing would have been for the 'couple' to not even ask someone to violate their relationship with The Almighty, much less try to coerce that violation.
I may not like Islam, but I'm not going to force a Muslim to handle pork. I'll just get my meat elsewhere, or hire someone else, instead.
-
Back it up a notch, peaches. The decent and honorable thing would have been for the 'couple' to not even ask someone to violate their relationship with The Almighty, much less try to coerce that violation.
I may not like Islam, but I'm not going to force a Muslim to handle pork. I'll just get my meat elsewhere, or hire someone else, instead.
Heck not too long ago the muslim cab drivers wouldn't even allow people with dogs in their cabs. Because dogs are unclean to them.
-
No, my faith is in Jesus Christ. Not in your sick vision of religious tribalism and violence.
Yet you ignore what He has to say in His Word.
You treat the bible like a buffet table and create your own religion salad to sate your own ideas on what God promotes and accepts while at the same time loathing those who live by every word, in their proper context and not just the words we like to hear.
As I have told you before, you have created a god to worship from your own imagination, not the One revealed.
-
@RoosGirl
It was never about the cake. If it were then they would have just gone somewhere else. No this was about forcing their beliefs on everyone else. They probably did a lot of research on bakeries and friendly judges before trying to buy the cake and the associated services.
BINGO!
We have a winner!
-
Get back to me when your halal butcher sells pork chops.
And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?
Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.
-
Heck not too long ago the muslim cab drivers wouldn't even allow people with dogs in their cabs. Because dogs are unclean to them.
So the question stands, why can one group say it is their religious belief to not do something and that's okay, and another group says it is against their religious belief to do something and they are stripped of their business, fined, etc.? Both are invoking their freedom of Religion, and one is invoking their freedom of speech (expression), which is another part of the First Amendment. While some Muslim cab drivers may ply their trade creatively, there is no doubt that creating a wedding cake requires creativity and talent, therefore, that cake is an expression. Forcing someone to express something that goes against their deeply held (religious) beliefs is a violation of their Right.
-
And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?
Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.
Meat is meat--they're a butcher.
What Christian Baker advertises they sell gay wedding cakes?
-
And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?
Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.
He advertises that he is a butcher that sells meat. But he only sells certain kinds of meat.
Just like a baker advertises he sells wedding cakes, but doesn't bake one for every kind of wedding.
-
@Jazzhead
. . .despite your hatred of all things Christian.
I don't hate Christians. I don't care much for bigots, though.
-
He advertises that he is a butcher that sells meat. But he only sells certain kinds of meat.
Just like a baker advertises he sells wedding cakes, but doesn't bake one for every kind of wedding.
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
-
Meat is meat--they're a butcher.
What Christian Baker advertises they sell gay wedding cakes?
@Jazzhead May have just hit on it. All bakers have to do is advertise Biblical Wedding Cakes or some version. Still not right but it would be funny to see.
They could just say "sorry Johnny, that is not a biblical wedding and we don't make those other kinda wedding cakes."
-
I don't hate Christians. I don't care much for bigots, though.
Hell Boy, anyone who disagrees with your SJW stances are bigots to you. It don't play here any more homie. Find a new sticht.
-
I don't hate Christians. I don't care much for bigots, though.
@Jazzhead
Actions speak louder than words.
-
And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?
Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.
(http://www.relatably.com/m/img/ultimate-facepalm-memes/Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-17.jpg)
-
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
And no baker says he has gay wedding cakes on his menu of services. Just like a halal butcher doesn't have pork on his. One makes wedding cakes, one sells meat.
You're mixing and matching general and specific as it pleases you to suit your definitions and beliefs.
-
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
That's easy - for a Christian baker that would mean weddings are between a man and a woman, just as for a halal butcher meat for food would be from a cloven-hoofed ruminant. It's very clear.
-
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
There is no way you are a real person that believes this. This is a person sitting behind their computer and laughing their ass off at those of us stupid enough to respond to this level of troll.
-
There is no way you are a real person that believes this. This is a person sitting behind their computer and laughing their ass off at those of us stupid enough to respond to this level of troll.
As far as trolls go...They must keep him around for entertainment value. 888high58888
-
There is no way you are a real person that believes this. This is a person sitting behind their computer and laughing their ass off at those of us stupid enough to respond to this level of troll.
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
-
There is no way you are a real person that believes this. This is a person sitting behind their computer and laughing their ass off at those of us stupid enough to respond to this level of troll.
He sets inaccurate expectations of what a "Christian" believes, then forces everybody to live up to them. If they fail, he screams "hypocrite!!!" Which Alinsky rule is that? I forget....
-
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
No Christian baker has homosexual "Wedding cakes" on his menu of services.
As usual - you go to bat for Muslims and seek to impose your perversion on Christians.
-
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what is being advertised, talk about pretzel logic.
-
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
Not at all. You are ok with a Muslim selling only halal meat. He advertises as halal and operates accordingly.
You should then be fine with a baker advertising that he/she only does cakes for biblical weddings, as long as they state that up front.
-
Not at all. You are ok with a Muslim selling only halal meat. He advertises as halal and operates accordingly.
You should then be fine with a baker advertising that he/she only does cakes for biblical weddings, as long as they state that up front.
Yes, that would be fine with me.
-
"Private transactions between citizens" are not at issue here, but rather commercial transactions, in the stream of interstate commerce. The Constitution most certainly permits the peoples' elected representatives to pass laws that regulate such commerce, and curb your "freedom" to cheat, lie or discriminate with respect to such dealings.
NO IT DOES NOT. Total bullshit. The federal government has absolutely no such authority and is in FACT creating bias against religious people (Judeo-Christians particularly) under the color of law.
The various STATES can arguably have that authority, but *NOT* your socialist federal behemoth.
-
Yes, that would be fine with me.
But the govt and the liberals don't see it that way. They allow one but not the other, favor this group but not that, promote one belief and morality over the other. Practice selective equality and hide behind the 14th, as if it is superior to all other amendments, which they can't enforce equally to start with.
-
You're right. More people have died in the name of God than any other reason. Maybe it's time to wake up and realize the foolishness and destructiveness of man's obsession with religious tribalism.
That is actually bullshit too. go research it. In the last hundred years, more people died from communism (which you espouse) and dictatorships than anything else - and in second place, infants murdered in the womb.
-
That is actually bullshit too. go research it. In the last hundred years, more people died from communism (which you espouse) and dictatorships than anything else - and in second place, infants murdered in the womb.
I have dropped by here occasionally and the only thing I see is a certain commenter that is (http://i50.tinypic.com/1495s3r.jpg)
If everyone just (http://i43.tinypic.com/14b5oxd.jpg) I think the thread would collapse.
-
I don't hate Christians. I don't care much for bigots, though.
The only bigotry I see is being aimed at someone who has specific deep beliefs related to their relationship with their deity.
The baker had served gay people in the shop before, as I am led to understand, so it wasn't a bigotry against gays.
However, the idea that two people in a same sex union is the equivalent of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, doesn't make the grade with Bible believing Christians, and to create a wedding cake for such an event to celebrate it doesn't either.
No bigotry, just a desire to NOT create something, based on a deeply held religious belief.
-
No halal butcher has pork on his menu of services. The baker says he offers wedding cakes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. That isn't a Christian concept?
But you have left out that a devout Bible believing Christian will not see a civil union between two people of the same sex as a "wedding".
Would you require him to bake a "wedding cake" if someone was marrying their dog?
-
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
Did the baker say they made Gay Wedding Cakes? Nope.
-
But you have left out that a devout Bible believing Christian will not see a civil union between two people of the same sex as a "wedding".
Would you require him to bake a "wedding cake" if someone was marrying their dog?
You know the answer to that.
Today he will say the idea is ludicrous.
Tomorrow he will argue that refusing to do so is bigotry and criminal.
It is what they do.
-
Get back to me when your halal butcher sells pork chops.
Damn right.
-
Did the baker say they made Gay Wedding Cakes? Nope.
I have purchased items from this bakery. They are excellent! And he has the courage of his convictions. I hope he wins big.
-
NO IT DOES NOT. Total bullshit. The federal government has absolutely no such authority and is in FACT creating bias against religious people (Judeo-Christians particularly) under the color of law.
The various STATES can arguably have that authority, but *NOT* your socialist federal behemoth.
Sexual orientation as a protected classification, by and large, remains a function of state or local law. That's certainly the case with respect to discrimination in the conduct of a public accommodation. The Colorado baker ran afoul of local nondiscrimination rules, not those of the "socialist federal behemoth".
-
I have purchased items from this bakery. They are excellent! And he has the courage of his convictions. I hope he wins big.
I hope his business is doing well. The brainwashed followers of the Gay and BLT agenda are a vindictive lot and draw the weak minded into their web of deceit.
-
"Private transactions between citizens" are not at issue here, but rather commercial transactions, in the stream of interstate commerce. The Constitution most certainly permits the peoples' elected representatives to pass laws that regulate such commerce, and curb your "freedom" to cheat, lie or discriminate with respect to such dealings.
how in the hell did you contort selling a cake to being interstate commerce?
Talk about absolute bullcrap
-
But you have left out that a devout Bible believing Christian will not see a civil union between two people of the same sex as a "wedding".
Would you require him to bake a "wedding cake" if someone was marrying their dog?
The customer has no knowledge of the baker's peculiar religious beliefs. All he/she knows is that he advertises to sell wedding cakes. Not all weddings are religious in nature (I suspect that most aren't). He/she enters the shop, and is arbitrarily turned away. Why should the baker's "religious freedom" be a license to discriminate?
-
I have purchased items from this bakery. They are excellent! And he has the courage of his convictions. I hope he wins big.
I hope he loses, and the plaintiffs are awarded the sum of one dollar.
-
how in the hell did you contort selling a cake to being interstate commerce?
Talk about absolute bullcrap
Tell it to the courts - decision after decision after decision, stretching back over most of this past century. This is commerce, subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, notwithstanding you stopping up your ears and stamping your feet that it's not.
:silly:
-
I don't hate Christians. I don't care much for bigots, though.
Physician, heal thyself. *****rollingeyes*****
-
However, the idea that two people in a same sex union is the equivalent of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, doesn't make the grade with Bible believing Christians, and to create a wedding cake for such an event to celebrate it doesn't either.
No bigotry, just a desire to NOT create something, based on a deeply held religious belief.
Keep in mind that same sex marriage is strictly a creature of the civil law. It has no religious connotations whatsoever. Just how is a "deeply held religious belief" offended by a civil ceremony, granting the participants certain rights and obligations under the civil law, but none whatsoever with the Deity?
-
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
A kosher deli likewise sells meats and advertises selling meats - but no one will expect to find pork there either... And neither should they.
-
And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?
Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.
I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.
-
I hope he loses, and the plaintiffs are awarded the sum of one dollar.
Well, that spells it out.
You wish to establish precedent that essentially refutes the enumerated protected rights under the Constitution of freedom of religion (nor prohibit the free exercise thereof) AND freedom of expression (speech: as in being forced to create something that represents something abhorrent to the artist). That's two of the five in the first amendment.
Gotcha.
-
You are deliberately misinterpreting what is being advertised, talk about pretzel logic.
Right... the actual thing in question here is that the fed nanny has declared recently that all marriages are marriages, to include homo marriage.
So now, since all 'marriages' are marriages Christian bakers must set aside their beliefs and bake cakes for homo marriages... and satanic marriages... and pagan marriages... and, I dunno, cross-species marriages, I guess.
A decade ago, the only wedding cakes that were made were for Jews and Christians, so advertising wedding cakes meant just that. Levering this bullshit will work only as long as it takes for Christian bakers to come up with a distinction in advertising - and then watch how the legal assault will change.
-
Sexual orientation as a protected classification, by and large, remains a function of state or local law. That's certainly the case with respect to discrimination in the conduct of a public accommodation. The Colorado baker ran afoul of local nondiscrimination rules, not those of the "socialist federal behemoth".
Then why in hell are you leaning on the Commerce Clause as your defense?
-
Keep in mind that same sex marriage is strictly a creature of the civil law. It has no religious connotations whatsoever. Just how is a "deeply held religious belief" offended by a civil ceremony, granting the participants certain rights and obligations under the civil law, but none whatsoever with the Deity?
A war is a civil ceremony. Yet we acknowledge the deeply held religious beliefs of those who refuse to be combatants and call them Conscientious Objectors.
If, in a civil action, you were to go smear your civil pig's blood all over the sidewalk in front of a Mosque, would the religious objections of those who worship there not be a consideration? Sure, that would be a "hate crime".
Actions taken without any religious overtones are not immune to being 'sin' or to final judgement. They affect the Christian Believer whether or not the action is sanctioned by some other church. Apparently you seem to think religion is something practiced in a church. It isn't, it's a lifestyle all its own, and that Judge is a few pay grades above any other.
-
The customer has no knowledge of the baker's peculiar religious beliefs. All he/she knows is that he advertises to sell wedding cakes. Not all weddings are religious in nature (I suspect that most aren't). He/she enters the shop, and is arbitrarily turned away. Why should the baker's "religious freedom" be a license to discriminate?
What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?
A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.
I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.
It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.
-
I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.
By Jazzy's logic that I've seen applied multiple times on this subject: Because the Halal butcher does not specifically state he doesn't sell pork chops, then he is de facto declaring he does sell pork chops and you're golden if you decide to sue him for it.
That is exactly what the boy is saying about the Christian bakers not wanting to cater gay "marriages": If they don't specifically advertise "No Gay 'Marriages,'" then they are in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. In one post upthread, he specifically states if the bakers made such a declaration, he'd be A-OK with it. I'd scrounge back and link his post, but it's a bit of a waste of time because I'm pretty sure he has me on his Ignore List.
And he accuses the rest of us of employing "pretzel logic" (actually a pretty good song by Steely Dan, title cut of the album, 1974).
-
Well, that spells it out.
You wish to establish precedent that essentially refutes the enumerated protected rights under the Constitution of freedom of religion (nor prohibit the free exercise thereof) AND freedom of expression (speech: as in being forced to create something that represents something abhorrent to the artist). That's two of the five in the first amendment.
Gotcha.
Yeah, he gave the game away there. It's all about the precedent.
-
By Jazzy's logic that I've seen applied multiple times on this subject: Because the Halal butcher does not specifically state he doesn't sell pork chops, then he is de facto declaring he does sell pork chops and you're golden if you decide to sue him for it.
That is exactly what the boy is saying about the Christian bakers not wanting to cater gay "marriages": If they don't specifically advertise "No Gay 'Marriages,'" then they are in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. In one post upthread, he specifically states if the bakers made such a declaration, he'd be A-OK with it. I'd scrounge back and link his post, but it's a bit of a waste of time because I'm pretty sure he has me on his Ignore List.
And he accuses the rest of us of employing "pretzel logic" (actually a pretty good song by Steely Dan, title cut of the album, 1974).
But then the howl would be that Gays were specifically excluded...
-
Then why in hell are you leaning on the Commerce Clause as your defense?
It's the only place in the US Constitution to which he can point that justifies his crusade.
-
But then the howl would be that Gays were specifically excluded...
Yeah, I know. It's a thing of beauty, isn't it? :laugh:
Heads I win, tails you lose. Typical Alinsky.
-
So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling?
There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.
Among the many members going after you on this thread, more than a couple I consider friends/allies.
I agree with you totally, @Jazzhead
The butcher analogy might not be the best one to use, but if you're a bakery and you advertise that you make wedding cakes....you're making that cake.
-
I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.
22222frying pan :laugh:
-
What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?
A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.
I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.
It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.
We're arguing with a pawn of the god of this age.
What it all boils down to is that the homosexual Statists are advocating the exact same thing Muslims do: Christians must renounce their faith and be subject to the state in whatever area they deem we must comply - or we must lose our heads/our business/our property/our livelihood/ our homes/our liberty.
This is the Mark of the Beast. We must think and act according to the dictates of the Beast - or we cannot make a living.
Tyrannical morons that spout the kind of crap our resident Leftist does either refuse to comprehend that this is how we view their perverted push to cater to homosexual marriage - or they fully understand and WANT to impose tyranny or engender a bloodbath of resistance to their demand we renounce or suffer punishment.
This entire issue is about punishing and silencing Christians belief and adherence, it has nothing to do with 'public accommodation'.
I will not publicly accommodate wickedness. I have the liberty by God to discriminate, and we are ordered to do so by God Himself - who tells us in no uncertain terms in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to 'Reject evil' of which homosexuality is specifically named and identified as such.
That means I refuse to bake the cake, or use my business to promote homosexuals or Leftist politicians.
Should they want to force me to comply or attempt to punish for refusal to disobey God - then the gift of liberty as handed to us by Christ must be defended with every means at our disposal.
It is better to obey God than men.
-
Yeah, I know. It's a thing of beauty, isn't it? :laugh:
Heads I win, tails you lose. Typical Alinsky.
Yabbut, we know who he dedicated his book to....(no wonder they're attacking Christians).
-
It is better to obey God than men.
Excellent post - Absolutely spot-on with every word, and succinctly described in the summary above.
-
Yes, that would be fine with me.
@Jazzhead
Apparently not, common meaning of marriage has included the biblical meaning. This is but one example of the hateful attempts to overturn hundreds of years of tradition and law.
-
The customer has no knowledge of the baker's peculiar religious beliefs. All he/she knows is that he advertises to sell wedding cakes. Not all weddings are religious in nature (I suspect that most aren't). He/she enters the shop, and is arbitrarily turned away. Why should the baker's "religious freedom" be a license to discriminate?
So when I go to order several of those giant free-standing feather sign banners with art designed and provided by myself for a client for a religious event at a convention center - and the sign printer I got a quote from tells me when he sees the art for them, that they cannot print my banners because they have Christian and biblical references on them and the owner does not serve religious organizations or their agents - instead of just finding another printer that is happy to take a job worth several thousand dollars to print the church event banners, I should sue for millions and run this printer out of business for discrimination in your sick and twisted world right?
I should demand he just "Print the damn sign" ala "Bake the damn cake!" because it's "discrimination" and all. They advertise digital printing of feather banners, using their art department or we can provide our own custom artwork (which we did). But because they have an unpublished "policy" of not printing anything "religious" - I should sue him into oblivion and punish him for discrimination and violating the Commerce Clause.
Unless of course - this printer is in his right to discriminate against Christians and those who quote the bible in their logos, and only Christians who discriminate against homosexuals should be forced to by a government gun to his head.
Unlike the tyranny you advocate be imposed by force - I use my liberty to go elsewhere and get my client's materials printed. Only tyrants the thugs advocate what you advocate.
-
What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?
A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.
I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.
It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.
Huh? A "satanic cake"? Is that like an evil petting zoo?
It's well established that a baker (or printer) can decline to write words he finds offensive. That's not unlawful discrimination, because it's based on the message the customer insists on, not who he is. The Colorado baker is in hot water because he declined to provide his advertised service for no reason other than his customers were a gay couple. This wasn't about the message the customers wanted written on the cake - their business was rejected because of who they were. According to his website, he's no longer taking orders for custom wedding cakes - and that's how it should be, if his religious scruples won't let him provide a wedding cake to a gay couple.
Your other analogies are just silly. Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination. In many places, gays are - largely because they have to endure a lot of crap from folks who reject them because they think their God demands it.
-
It is better to obey God than men.
Of course. That's why I speak out against your threats of violence in His name. Don't mistake me for some atheist. If I were, I wouldn't give a damn about your poison.
-
Your other analogies are just silly. Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination. In many places, gays are - largely because they have to endure a lot of crap from folks who reject them because they think their God demands it.
So in other words you believe in selective equality.
-
So in other words you believe in selective equality.
No, I think roamer's analogies are silly.
-
Of course. That's why I speak out against your threats of violence in His name. Don't mistake me for some atheist. If I were, I wouldn't give a damn about your poison.
I'm not threatening violence in His Name.
I'm warning tyrants like you - that as Americans - we have an inalienable right to defend our liberties with extreme prejudice against efforts to impose the kind of crap you applaud be imposed upon us.
Because Liberty is the gift of God - and I choose to discriminate against evil and those who push it.
-
No, I think roamer's analogies are silly.
His analogies are quite apt. Either you are for equality or you or not. To say only govt approved and protected grievance groups have equality, is not equality.
This is even more exacerbated with transsexuals, who base their status strictly on belief. Why is one's set of beliefs more valuable and legit than the other?
-
His analogies are quite apt. Either you are for equality or you or not. To say only govt approved and protected grievance groups have equality, is not equality.
This is even more exacerbated with transsexuals, who base their status strictly on belief. Why is one's set of beliefs more valuable and legit than the other?
Because the courts say so? That's usually his argument.
-
It's well established that a baker (or printer) can decline to write words he finds offensive. That's not unlawful discrimination, because it's based on the message the customer insists on, not who he is. The Colorado baker is in hot water because he declined to provide his advertised service for no reason other than his customers were a gay couple. This wasn't about the message the customers wanted written on the cake - their business was rejected because of who they were. According to his website, he's no longer taking orders for custom wedding cakes - and that's how it should be, if his religious scruples won't let him provide a wedding cake to a gay couple.
A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.
It isn't about them being 'gay' but this one thing the baker would not lend his creativity to celebrate, any more than a Jewish baker could be expected to make a cake celebrating the death camps, or a Muslim butcher could be expected to handle pork. What I want to know is why you seem to think Rights only count for everyone BUT Christians.
-
Because the courts say so? That's usually his argument.
Anyone supporting that then concedes that they believe the govt should dictate national morality. Those that do often scream separation of Church and State, but then go along with the State being the Church.
-
A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.
It isn't about them being 'gay' but this one thing the baker would not lend his creativity to celebrate, any more than a Jewish baker could be expected to make a cake celebrating the death camps, or a Muslim butcher could be expected to handle pork. What I want to know is why you seem to think Rights only count for everyone BUT Christians.
Which I think is a very important point. The baker didn't refuse to bake them a cake, he refused to bake them a wedding cake that celebrated their gay union. Had it been a birthday cake he would have baked it. He simply refused to go to a degree of specificity that violated his religious conscience, just like the halal butcher that sells meat but nothing as specific as pork.
Which brings up the point of how far is a vendor supposed to go to please everyone and their little ideological demands? At what point is it infringing on the vendor to force them to do whatever the govt deems he must do no matter how much of a violation of his rights it is? How many hoops of specificity is he supposed to jump thru?
As I said above, it becomes even more ridiculous with the transsexuals get thrown into this debate, as they have nothing but their belief to justify their grievance group status.
-
Huh? A "satanic cake"? Is that like an evil petting zoo?
Yeah. Satanists get married too - Legally.
It's well established that a baker (or printer) can decline to write words he finds offensive. That's not unlawful discrimination, because it's based on the message the customer insists on, not who he is.
So IOW, the seller must listen carefully and only deny the work after hearing the full spiel... 'Hi, I'm a satanist and I want a wedding cake' is not enough? It's enough for me. Take a hike. It saves us both the time.
The Colorado baker is in hot water because he declined to provide his advertised service for no reason other than his customers were a gay couple. This wasn't about the message the customers wanted written on the cake - their business was rejected because of who they were.
Big deal. I reject business all the time for who people are.
According to his website, he's no longer taking orders for custom wedding cakes - and that's how it should be, if his religious scruples won't let him provide a wedding cake to a gay couple.
Right. If you can't have any, no one can. What infantile bullshit.
Your other analogies are just silly. Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination.
No, but they will be. this shit you like never ends.
In many places, gays are - largely because they have to endure a lot of crap from folks who reject them because they think their God demands it.
Good. Let em go where they're not discriminated against. That's what I would have to do.
-
So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?
It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/hollywood.jpg)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg)
Again, the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake, he's refusing to bake a certain designed cake. If you can force a baker to make a specially designed cake contrary to his personal morals, you can force any baker (or business for that matter) to make specially designed items for whomever requests them. I don't believe I have to list again the nasty but legal groups that could not be turned down.
-
I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread. The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.
-
It's a business, not a church. If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.
"then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers."
Not a logical statement. If a sign company makes funny or weird signs for certain customers, according to you they have to satisfy everybody's demands for whatever kind of sign they want.
All businesses discriminate. What stops people who practice (list your weird activity) that is still legal from demanding the sign company or bakery created an item specifically for their special weird sexual proclivity?
According to you, nothing. Nudists (a legal group of people) demand a cake with the bride and groom or whomever stark naked and with genitalia portruding, according to you, the bakery must do so.
-
I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread. The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.
888high58888
-
Again, the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake, he's refusing to bake a certain designed cake. If you can force a baker to make a specially designed cake contrary to his personal morals, you can force any baker (or business for that matter) to make specially designed items for whomever requests them. I don't believe I have to list again the nasty but legal groups that could not be turned down.
Sigh. Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide
No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes. But if he advertises that service, why shouldn't he be true to his word? Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.
-
Sigh. Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide
No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes. But if he advertises that service, why shouldn't he be true to his word? Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.
"Victim".... Jeeeeeeez. That no one would have known about except for the two parties if they had just gone and *easily* found a baker who would take their money and give them what they wanted. They made themselves a "victim".
-
No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes. But if he advertises that service, why shouldn't he be true to his word? Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. They're the victim.
All they had to do is walk out the door and down the street to get another cake. Big deal.
In the mean time, the baker's freedom in creativity, business, fortune, and likely life, lay in wreckage
For *NOT* doing something. Your position is preposterous.
-
Sigh. Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide
So what? Advertising something does not mean that a vendor is under any legal obligation to satisfy every extreme request.
By that logic nothing could be refused.
-
So what? Advertising something does not mean that a vendor is under any legal obligation to satisfy every extreme request.
By that logic nothing could be refused.
So a wedding cake requested by a gay couple rather than a straight couple is an "extreme request"? How so? Remember, the issue isn't what was requested to be written on the cake - the baker rejected the couple ab initio. What's "extreme" is the baker's justification that his religious sensibilities were offended, since a same sex wedding is a civil matter with no religious implications whatsoever.
Better he bake no wedding cakes at all.
-
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. They're the victim.
All they had to do is walk out the door and down the street to get another cake. Big deal.
In the mean time, the baker's freedom in creativity, business, fortune, and likely life, lay in wreckage
For *NOT* doing something. Your position is preposterous.
Hey, the baker made the decision to discriminate. I have no doubt his legal crusade to discriminate is being bankrolled by others, and his talent for publicity means he'll pick up lots of business from folks who'd otherwise have never heard of his shop.
He'll be just fine.
-
Hey, the baker made the decision to discriminate. I have no doubt his legal crusade to discriminate is being bankrolled by others, and his talent for publicity means he'll pick up lots of business from folks who'd otherwise have never heard of his shop.
He'll be just fine.
I'd hope you get drug through a legal knothole, just to let you understand how wrong you are... But that'd be petty.
-
I'd hope you get drug through a legal knothole, just to let you understand how wrong you are... But that'd be petty.
You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others? Don't be naïve.
-
So a wedding cake requested by a gay couple rather than a straight couple is an "extreme request"? How so? Remember, the issue isn't what was requested to be written on the cake - the baker rejected the couple ab initio. What's "extreme" is the baker's justification that his religious sensibilities were offended, since a same sex wedding is a civil matter with no religious implications whatsoever.
Better he bake no wedding cakes at all.
Just as he would reject any other kind of marriage that was outside the norm determined by his religion. Just like the halal butcher. The couple wasn't asking for a plain cake of their color - they were asking for a wedding cake decorated as such.
It is not up to you what does an does not qualify as having religious implications or not. The gay couple's sensibilities were also offended but somehow theirs is the only one recognized.
By that logic there can be no discrimination against anyone for any reason or request, unless you are talking about selectively enforced equality.
-
You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others? Don't be naïve.
I know others have been crushed. And the money, while it matters, is only a part of the disaster. Like I siad, I hope it doesn't happen to you, even though that lesson would be informative.
-
Sigh. Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide
No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes. But if he advertises that service, why shouldn't he be true to his word? Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.
Selectively enforced "equality" indeed.
Once again you demonstrate the tyrannical thug that all Leftists espouse in terms of deciding whom is permitted liberty and whom is not.
The banner printer advertised they print any design on their product. We can submit our own designs or we can contract a design from their art department. We provided my design which contained a logo for their church that has a scripture for an event they are hosting. The banner printer refused the order once the art was submitted because they have an unpublished policy to not print anything biblical or deemed religious.
Since the banner printer advertised the service, but has refused to provide that service, why shouldn't they be true to their advertised word? The "victim" here is my client, a Christian church, because the banner printer arbitrarily cited his "atheism" to refuse to provide what he advertised to provide.
However, unlike the homo snowflakes you champion and promote - neither me nor my client is 'humiliated' because the printer has an unspoken policy to eschew anything Christian or biblical, we used our liberty to find another printer of feather banners who wanted our money instead.
We do not desire to act like thugs, bullies and tyrants to force an atheist to violate his policy to cater to our demands, which is what you and those like you advocate be done to Christians.
-
Perhaps the folks flogging the notion that "public accomodations" laws trump the First Amendment could address the case law cited in the DOJ's amicus curia brief https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief (https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief) that supports the opposite view, rather than just repeating themselves. Jazzhead, that, especially, means you.
-
Selectively enforced "equality" indeed.
Once again you demonstrate the tyrannical thug that all Leftists espouse in terms of deciding whom is permitted liberty and whom is not.
The banner printer advertised they print any design on their product. We can submit our own designs or we can contract a design from their art department. We provided my design which contained a logo for their church that has a scripture for an event they are hosting. The banner printer refused the order once the art was submitted because they have an unpublished policy to not print anything biblical or deemed religious.
Since the banner printer advertised the service, but has refused to provide that service, why shouldn't they be true to their advertised word? The "victim" here is my client, a Christian church, because the banner printer arbitrarily cited his "atheism" to refuse to provide what he advertised to provide.
However, unlike the homo snowflakes you champion and promote - neither me nor my client is 'humiliated' because the printer has an unspoken policy to eschew anything Christian or biblical, we used our liberty to find another printer of feather banners who wanted our money instead.
We do not desire to act like thugs, bullies and tyrants to force an atheist to violate his policy to cater to our demands, which is what you and those like you advocate be done to Christians.
It seems you may have been discriminated against. The law provides for a private right of action to address such discrimination. Each citizen has the choice to exercise or not exercise that right. Those who choose to do so are not "thugs, bullies and tyrants".
You seem to get off on the notion you're better than anyone else. Newsflash - we all end up as worm food.
-
Perhaps the folks flogging the notion that "public accomodations" laws trump the First Amendment could address the case law cited in the DOJ's amicus curia brief https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief (https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief) that supports the opposite view, rather than just repeating themselves. Jazzhead, that, especially, means you.
Thanks for the link. This may be the crux of it:
Public accommodations laws generally do not regulate the content of expression but rather the discrimi-natory provision of goods or services—an act that is not itself protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause
The law therefore, may turn on a finding of fact - is the furnishing of a wedding cake the "provision of a good or service" or rather "expressive" conduct that is First Amendment protected. Again, where I think the baker may have gone wrong is turning away the couple before they even had the chance to articulate what they wanted the baker to "express" on the cake. Clearly, he could have refused to write a custom message on the cake he deemed offensive. But that's not what happened here - the couple was turned away for no other reason than what they wanted was a wedding cake and they happened to be gay.
-
How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.
How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?
-
How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.
How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?
Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes. Sorry. It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy.
-
Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes. Sorry. It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy.
So you're trading freedom for safety.
-
A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.
Or, put another way, if a straight couple wanted to order a "gay wedding" cake, he would have refused.
Therefore, the buyer is not being discriminated against due to sexual orientation. The baker will not create a certain type of cake, a policy which applies equally to all of his (potential) customers.
-
How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.
That's not fair! It's not like your customers can choose whether or not to do business with you.
-
Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes. Sorry. It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy.
SO what?
That leaves plenty of market for the people who are willing to do business with the people others will not.
All that forces anyone to impose rules on anyone's freedom is the deep desire to be totalitarian, even if just over one little thing, even if for our own good. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.- C.S. Lewis
-
It seems you may have been discriminated against.
Of course my client was. That is a right the printer has. He can choose whom he will serve with his services and decide what things he will print and what things he will not.
I had the liberty to find another printer who wanted my client's money.
The law provides for a private right of action to address such discrimination. Each citizen has the choice to exercise or not exercise that right. Those who choose to do so are not "thugs, bullies and tyrants".
They are thugs, bullies and tyrants when they step on the liberties and private property of others, which I would be doing if I used Mama Government to force this printer to do what I demand he produce, even when it violates his conscience. There are plenty of other printers out there. Only shit-stirring thugs and bullies seeking monetary gain, publicity and/or to impose punishment engage in suing a business into oblivion because they were offended that the company does not want their business.
You seem to get off on the notion you're better than anyone else.
I'm not a tyrant like you are, promoting and advocating that people be forced to violate their principles and consciences to accommodate a belief or behavior they find abhorrent.
That alone makes me better than you as far as liberty goes.
-
If certain people i.e. homosexuals or other people with sexual or behavioral habits that are highly out of the ordinary/abnormal can force a bakery to make a particular item i.e. a wedding cake specifically suited for them, then any person or group can force any business to make whatever the person or group desires.
Saying that certain groups can be excluded because they're "hate" groups, like the Nazis or WNs, ignores the fact that many Americans consider leftist groups, individuals, hateful. They also consider certain practices as hateful or to be avoided. One of those practices is homosexuality.
To say because many Americans tolerate homosexuality means they approve of the practice is simply false. Many Americans, including many non-religious types (like me) find it abhorrent.
That means we don't necessarily hate the homosexual, it just means we find the practice abhorrent, disgusting, and something to be fixed if possible. Tolerating homosexuality in no way means condoning homosexual marriage, adoption, or public displays
To say because many or a majority of the public either don't care or sanction homosexuality doesn't make it right. In many Moslem countries, marrying your first cousin is accepted. Obviously, a very great majority of Muslims find no fault with marrying their first cousin. Should we all accept it or does that make it right because a huge majority of Muslims support being able to marry their first cousin?
Now, if some homosexual bakers decide that they will only serve other homosexuals (if they could tell) or only bake homosexuality-approved specialty items, I have no problem with that. It's like any other business catering to a certain clientele.
A homosexual-catering business should be able to refuse any demands from me to bake a specialty item they don't want to.
That's called freedom.
-
How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.
How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?
You're absolutely right.
Make the business owner 'King' of his castle and all this stuff goes away.
Eventually, one may learn that pants are to worn around the waist in a restaurant.
-
You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others? Don't be naïve.
His legal crusade?
What a stupid, petty comment. Who is crusading anyway?
Not the baker. It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller. And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.
You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.
-
Just as he would reject any other kind of marriage that was outside the norm determined by his religion. Just like the halal butcher. The couple wasn't asking for a plain cake of their color - they were asking for a wedding cake decorated as such.
It is not up to you what does an does not qualify as having religious implications or not. The gay couple's sensibilities were also offended but somehow theirs is the only one recognized.
By that logic there can be no discrimination against anyone for any reason or request, unless you are talking about selectively enforced equality.
He is wishing we were all slaves, to do whatever someone asked of us.
He forgets that we abolished slavery 150 years ago.
-
Not the baker. It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller. And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.
That is a very valid point.
-
His legal crusade?
What a stupid, petty comment. Who is crusading anyway?
Not the baker. It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller. And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.
You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.
He's taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court - who do you think is paying his lawyers' bills?
Not that there's anything wrong with that - obviously he feels he's in the right, and has plenty of folks that agree with him. But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination. And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.
If a business advertises a product or service to the general public, then it should stay true to its word. That's what at stake here for many. Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.
-
He is wishing we were all slaves, to do whatever someone asked of us.
He forgets that we abolished slavery 150 years ago.
Once again, the baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for the homosexual couple. He refused to bake a certain type of wedding cake.
This is not the same thing as refusing to sell an item to a certain group like some business refusing to sell their widget to a particular group.
The homosexual couple were quite free to purchase a traditional wedding cake just like all the non-homosexual couples who purchased one. They WERE NOT!!! being denied the right to purchase an item at the bakery. They were only being denied a specially made cake.
This is no different from any other business that declared they only made certain types of products.
If some business decided they made a product which would only be painted blue, I should not be able to force them to make me one of their products of another color if they didn't want to.
Like Henry Ford supposedly said (he actually didn't mean it quite that way) the public can have any color of car they want as long as it's black.
By forcing the baker to make a homosexual-themed cake, the courts basically told businesses they have to make items specifically the way any customer asks for whether the company wants to make them or not. I don't think that's the way the first amendment was intended to work.
-
His legal crusade?
What a stupid, petty comment. Who is crusading anyway?
Not the baker. It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller. And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.
You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.
Leftists are always the innocent victims, never the aggressors. It's all part of playing the victim.
-
Leftists are always the innocent victims, never the aggressors. It's all part of playing the victim.
The baker is the one who chose to arbitrarily deny the advertised service. Don't give me your crap about who is the victim. He's on a crusade, and he's welcome to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. But his customer was the victim of that crusade.
-
He's taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court - who do you think is paying his lawyers' bills?
Not that there's anything wrong with that - obviously he feels he's in the right, and has plenty of folks that agree with him. But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination. And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.
If a business advertises a product or service to the general public, then it should stay true to its word. That's what at stake here for many. Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.
He is breaking no law. He, in exercising his 1st Amendment rights, have had them trampled by an edict from a bureaucracy in Colorado.
You can repeat your mantra as long as you wish about 'discrimination' or 'public accommodation' or whatever.
We know the game you and those you support play and will not bow to anything like it.
And BTW. when will you enlighten us on the interstate commerce clause's usage in baking a cake?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,280569.msg1450625.html#msg1450625
-
But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination. And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.
I plan on continuing discrimination of homosexual behaviors and perversions.
And you have absolutely no idea what 'arbitrary discrimination' actually looks like in the rest of the world. You sit here in prosperity, bored and feigning outrage for perverts and jihadists while being willfully clueless about what real discrimination and persecution looks like.
I've seen it up close and personal bub.
Skin color and gender are vehicles for discrimination laws. Behavior, is not.
By your reckoning, if behavior can now be associated with discrimination law, then pedophiles, transexuals, murderers, rapists and thieves should also not be discriminated against because of their behavior.
And of course that is exactly where such nonsense like yours goes, which is how much of the third world operates in their caste systems. The government chooses what behaviors get rewarded and protected (thievery and murder against Christians for example in Andrha Pradesh), and what behaviors and practices must be punished (Christians in Andrha Pradesh).
Today you champion homosexual behavior over Christian liberty. Tomorrow you will champion thievery and murder over Christians.
Oh, you will deny such an 'absurd thing' now - but your arbitrary government-approved discrimination agenda is precisely where it goes.
Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.
Your "Law" is invalid and we intend to ignore it.
We will obey God, before we kowtow to tyrants like you.
And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.
-
The baker is the one who chose to arbitrarily deny the advertised service. Don't give me your crap about who is the victim. He's on a crusade, and he's welcome to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. But his customer was the victim of that crusade.
"Crap" you say? **nononono* You go on and on and on about "advertised service" and you've have it explained many times to you why it was not an "advertised service." In fact, the "victims" you refer to in this case went out of their way to avoid other bakers who would have met their needs, just to pin something on this one. Typical of your breed, actually, that Fluke chick who went to Georgetown to study soley for the purpose of suing them over their Birth Control policy is another example.
(http://publicrelationsmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Reagan-Mondale-debate-There-you-go-again-again.gif)
-
So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion. I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.
-
And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.
Nope.
-
So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion. I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.
Here's what the victim baker says about that
For Phillips, the question is whether his actions really reflect a Christian approach to life. He is asked, What would Jesus do?
“Well, you know, in my opinion – Jesus was a carpenter. I don’t think he would have made a bed for their wedding,” Phillips said. “He would have never condoned something that he was against. “
When will you defend your comment here? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,280569.msg1450625.html#msg1450625
-
I plan on continuing discrimination of homosexual behaviors and perversions.
And you have absolutely no idea what 'arbitrary discrimination' actually looks like in the rest of the world. You sit here in prosperity, bored and feigning outrage for perverts and jihadists while being willfully clueless about what real discrimination and persecution looks like.
I've seen it up close and personal bub.
Skin color and gender are vehicles for discrimination laws. Behavior, is not.
By your reckoning, if behavior can now be associated with discrimination law, then pedophiles, transexuals, murderers, rapists and thieves should also not be discriminated against because of their behavior.
And of course that is exactly where such nonsense like yours goes, which is how much of the third world operates in their caste systems. The government chooses what behaviors get rewarded and protected (thievery and murder against Christians for example in Andrha Pradesh), and what behaviors and practices must be punished (Christians in Andrha Pradesh).
Today you champion homosexual behavior over Christian liberty. Tomorrow you will champion thievery and murder over Christians.
Oh, you will deny such an 'absurd thing' now - but your arbitrary government-approved discrimination agenda is precisely where it goes.
Your "Law" is invalid and we intend to ignore it.
We will obey God, before we kowtow to tyrants like you.
And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.
What he is really doing is forcing businesses to make products they don't want to make. Your favorite color of car is gold, but the company doesn't make gold colored products? They must now because they are not allowed to discriminate.
It doesn't matter what the reason for refusing to make a certain type of product with a special design, all businesses must now make their products any way a customer demands, no exceptions alllowed.
That is the import of the court decision: it basically forces businesses to make products they don't want to make. You made and sold your red, white, or blue car but don't make a gold one? You must now make me one says the customer.
The business replies, "but we don't want to make one like that."
"That's discriminating against people like me who love gold colored cars" says the customer.
The business must then by court precedent be forced to make the customer a gold-colored car.
-
So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion. I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.
@Jazzhead
Careful there. You've rejected Jesus on numerous occasions and now claim to know what he would do.
Jesus taught us to love the sinner but hate the sin. Participating in a gay marriage is blashpehemes and sinful.
-
So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion. I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.
He would certainly be tired of your attempting to shoehorn leftist philosophy into those twisted interpretations of His Word. "If you were a Christian you would accept (insert Socialist dogma here)."
-
@Jazzhead
Careful there. You've rejected Jesus on numerous occasions and now claim to know what he would do.
Jesus taught us to love the dinner but hate the sin. Participating in a gay marriage is blashpehemes and sinful.
Chicken dinner?
-
Chicken dinner?
Dang phone.
-
Dang phone.
:laugh: Thought things were getting a little tense on this thread.
-
You know, I am finally going to have to admit that it is refreshing to have a vocal lib part of our blog.
It serves as a reminder of the fight we are up against, and shows how perverted some can be when it comes to interpretation of what is within the Constitution.
It also shows how libs try to convince people - by stretching the truth and by incessant repeated bites that if repeated enough seem to morph fantasy into the truth.
What a lib like this also does is solidify a conservative's rationale in rejecting liberal doctrine, as my fellow GBR offer many convincing arguments on why that doctrine needs rejection. It also demonstrates how a lib simply refuses to answer legitimate comments that he knows he cannot answer.
Well done, lib.
-
"Crap" you say? **nononono* You go on and on and on about "advertised service" and you've have it explained many times to you why it was not an "advertised service." In fact, the "victims" you refer to in this case went out of their way to avoid other bakers who would have met their needs, just to pin something on this one. Typical of your breed, actually, that Fluke chick who went to Georgetown to study soley for the purpose of suing them over their Birth Control policy is another example.
For those who don't really understand the irony of the Fluke thing, Georgetown was founded by a Jesuit, as a Catholic University, a Church which is generally against contraception by artificial means.
So having a Law Student from there testify for the ACA because she allegedly could not afford contraceptives was a real slap in the face to the heritage of the institution and the Church, too.
-
You know, I am finally going to have to admit that it is refreshing to have a vocal lib part of our blog.
It serves as a reminder of the fight we are up against, and shows how perverted some can be when it comes to interpretation of what is within the Constitution.
It also shows how libs try to convince people - by stretching the truth and by incessant repeated bites that if repeated enough seem to morph fantasy into the truth.
What a lib like this also does is solidify a conservative's rationale in rejecting liberal doctrine, as my fellow GBR offer many convincing arguments on why that doctrine needs rejection. It also demonstrates how a lib simply refuses to answer legitimate comments that he knows he cannot answer.
Well done, lib.
Which is why I am perfectly happy we have a resident Hedonist and Leftist to become such a good fodder for target practice against the liberal arguments.
-
For those who don't really understand the irony of the Fluke thing, Georgetown was founded by a Jesuit, as a Catholic University, a Church which is generally against contraception by artificial means.
So having a Law Student from there testify for the ACA because she allegedly could not afford contraceptives was a real slap in the face to the heritage of the institution and the Church, too.
As.... fully intended by the rabid, radical left. It was a twofer for them.
-
You know, I am finally going to have to admit that it is refreshing to have a vocal lib part of our blog.
It serves as a reminder of the fight we are up against, and shows how perverted some can be when it comes to interpretation of what is within the Constitution.
It also shows how libs try to convince people - by stretching the truth and by incessant repeated bites that if repeated enough seem to morph fantasy into the truth.
What a lib like this also does is solidify a conservative's rationale in rejecting liberal doctrine, as my fellow GBR offer many convincing arguments on why that doctrine needs rejection. It also demonstrates how a lib simply refuses to answer legitimate comments that he knows he cannot answer.
Well done, lib.
Exactly. The token lib is a perfect and ongoing illustration and reminder of why we're fighting these leftist cretins and what we are fighting for.... ie an America that is NOT ruled by those that think in that same warped and twisted fashion.
:beer:
-
So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion. I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.
Yeah... if you are speaking of the religion of socialism, you'd be right.
Yeshua in no way sanctions homosexual activity. No doubt he loves homosexuals, and hopes they would find peace in teshuva, but to think he would endorse their activity is just stone dead wrong.
-
Exactly. The token lib is a perfect and ongoing illustration and reminder of why we're fighting these leftist cretins and what we are fighting for.... ie an America that is NOT ruled by those that think in that same warped and twisted fashion.
:beer:
I have to smile - I've had the conservative/fascist tag hung on me so many times over the years that it's refreshing, sorta, to be slammed as a "liberal" on this board. The fact is I've voted Republican my entire adult life. But my preference for pragmatism over ideology - and, yeah, I admit, an absolute aversion to bigotry in all shapes and forms - gets me tagged with the Mark of the Beast around here.
Oh well. Agree or disagree, thanks for reading what I have to say.
-
He would certainly be tired of your attempting to shoehorn leftist philosophy into those twisted interpretations of His Word. "If you were a Christian you would accept (insert Socialist dogma here)."
Twisted is apt.
Twisting Torah to suit oneself is the definition of wickedness.
-
I have to smile - I've had the conservative/fascist tag hung on me so many times over the years that it's refreshing, sorta, to be slammed as a "liberal" on this board. ...
Jazzhead, I find that impossible to believe.
-
Yeshua in no way sanctions homosexual activity. No doubt he loves homosexuals, and hopes they would find peace in teshuva, but to think he would endorse their activity is just stone dead wrong.
*****rollingeyes*****
Since when is Jack Phillips the anointed representative of "Yeshua"? You really think "Yeshua" is cheering this yokel on?
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?
-
Jazzhead, I find that impossible to believe.
Everything's relative, you know. Where are you from? I'm from Philly - where conservatives - both of us :patriot: - catch hell from the liberals all the time.
-
Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?
Ask us if we care.
To the world and to the wicked, the things of God are but foolishness and evil in themselves according to the morality of men.
-
Everything's relative, you know. Where are you from? I'm from Philly - where conservatives - both of us :patriot: - catch hell from the liberals all the time.
Now, see that's one of those things that make it hard to believe that you get flack for being conservative. You may be slightly to the right of some leftists, but that does not make you a conservative.
And, all that relativity talk - that's not a conservative idea, as isn't the idea that location determines whether one is or isn't a conservative.
I had hoped that you would have picked up on some of these concepts during your time here, but you seem much more interested in re-defining conservatism (and marriage) to suit your own desires than to learn anything from this fairly diverse and well-informed group of posters here. It's up to you to take advantage of opportunities or not, much as many here use your comments to hone and sharpen their conservative ideals.
-
But my preference for pragmatism over ideology - and, yeah, I admit, an absolute aversion to bigotry in all shapes and forms - gets me tagged with the Mark of the Beast around here.
The fact you push the mechanism that one may not buy or sell or engage in making a living if they do not think and act according to the demands of perversion, are most definitely a Mark of the Beast.
Because that is exactly how it operates according to scripture, when wickedness abounds and righteousness is hated to the point that the people of Yah are persecuted to death and slaughtered en masse by those pushing the kind of evil you push. Jesus foretells a Slaughter and evil of His people so great, that if those days are not cut short, none will be left alive. For our sake those days will be cut short.
So we observe the signs of the times and recognize that the kinds of perversion and the manner in which you want them imposed - is indeed the very thing that will become a vehicle of mass slaughter against anyone who holds fast to the bible.
And people pushing evil and perversion like you, who in the name of 'ending bigotry' - will be the very ones to cheerlead and push for that mass slaughter.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Since when is Jack Phillips the anointed representative of "Yeshua"? You really think "Yeshua" is cheering this yokel on?
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?
It isn't about baking a lousy cake. Someone with no morals might have done just that. Instead, the baker refused to do a job. It's about forcing someone to channel their creative energies, skill, and talent into creating something to celebrate something they feel is JUST WRONG, and can back that with centuries old religious scripture bolstering long held beliefs.
Would they have gone to a Muslim Baker for a "wedding cake" for a homosexual union, knowing the Islamic teachings about homosexuality? Or instead of winning the 'head in the gutter prize' or racing to the ground from the roof of tall buildings, they decided they could sue the Christians for simply not baking it, (a civil and nonviolent refusal).
Doubtless, the baker was specifically targeted for his beliefs. There were other bakers around, and one of them likely would have welcomed the business. This was a premeditated assault on the Religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the First Amendment Right to speak freely through his art--or NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.
There is a law against conspiring to deprive someone of fundamental civil rights, and I would say two out of the protected Rights in the First Amendment qualify. 18 U.S. Code § 241
There is another law which covers deprivation of Rights under color of Law: 18 U.S. Code § 242
I'm sure a shrewd attorney could turn the tables in this case.
In any sane court, the enumerated right to freely hold, and practice according to, his Religious beliefs and the enumerated and sui juris right to freedom to express as he sees fit (including not at all) through his trade work in any given instance, should trump the court decreed 'right' to coerce others to act against their religious beliefs or create something to 'celebrate' a union they find abhorrent.
If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the court (and there are Civil provisions as well, where a mere preponderance of evidence is needed, not reasonable doubt) that the 'couple' specifically targeted the baker because of his Christian beliefs, I owuld thing the Baker would be able to sue all the parties who have worked together, with malice and forethought, to violate his Civil Rights.
-
Now, see that's one of those things that make it hard to believe that you get flack for being conservative. You may be slightly to the right of some leftists, but that does not make you a conservative.
And, all that relativity talk - that's not a conservative idea, as isn't the idea that location determines whether one is or isn't a conservative.
I had hoped that you would have picked up on some of these concepts during your time here, but you seem much more interested in re-defining conservatism (and marriage) to suit your own desires than to learn anything from this fairly diverse and well-informed group of posters here. It's up to you to take advantage of opportunities or not, much as many here use your comments to hone and sharpen their conservative ideals.
I enjoy the dialogue on this board, and do learn a lot from the members here. I've been participating on conservative forums ever since the old Town Hall board more than a dozen years ago. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm of the old school, Northeastern variety. And yes, I tend to be more "moderate" on social issues, and abhor bigotry. So I'm less in step with folks here on issues like same sex marriage and religious tribalism and prejudice. I've had too many friends, family members and colleagues who've been harmed by religious intolerance. So, yeah, I speak out. I've left the Church over it. But I love Jesus Christ.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Since when is Jack Phillips the anointed representative of "Yeshua"? You really think "Yeshua" is cheering this yokel on?
I am not the one who dragged Yeshua into this mess, but if you want my opinion on it - Yes, I think Yeshua would be happy with his disciple, who has the bold faith in YHWH to stand upon the Word.
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
Right - As would I... Kinda the same sort of thing as 'not bowing down to the image of the beast'. In fact, it is EXACTLY not bowing down to the image of the beast.
Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?
I can tell you who most of my IRL friends think is being mean and petty. And it ain't the baker.
-
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
They didn't refuse a cake to a homosexual couple. They refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. If the couple had been heterosexual, they would have still refused.
-
I enjoy the dialogue on this board, and do learn a lot from the members here. I've been participating on conservative forums ever since the old Town Hall board more than a dozen years ago. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm of the old school, Northeastern variety. And yes, I tend to be more "moderate" on social issues, and abhor bigotry. So I'm less in step with folks here on issues like same sex marriage and religious tribalism and prejudice. I've had too many friends, family members and colleagues who've been harmed by religious intolerance. So, yeah, I speak out. I've left the Church over it. But I love Jesus Christ.
OK, can you tell me something that you have learned from this forum on the topic of conservatism that you didn't know before you started posting here? I'm feeling like we haven't been getting through at all.
Oh - and just a hint: you might want to drop all of the "intolerance and bigotry" talk. It makes it sound like you are calling other people here that, and it makes you sound very intolerant and a bit of a bigot.
-
I enjoy the dialogue on this board, and do learn a lot from the members here. I've been participating on conservative forums ever since the old Town Hall board more than a dozen years ago. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm of the old school, Northeastern variety. And yes, I tend to be more "moderate" on social issues, and abhor bigotry. So I'm less in step with folks here on issues like same sex marriage and religious tribalism and prejudice. I've had too many friends, family members and colleagues who've been harmed by religious intolerance. So, yeah, I speak out. I've left the Church over it. But I love Jesus Christ.
Please read what @Sanguine mentioned above about the bigotry and intolerance talk. You're needlessly irritating people and put yourself on the other side of a "he vs me" encounter.
Many here would say you're doing that by design, and it sure looks that way sometimes.
-
OK, can you tell me something that you have learned from this forum on the topic of conservatism that you didn't know before you started posting here? I'm feeling like we haven't been getting through at all.
Oh - and just a hint: you might want to drop all of the "intolerance and bigotry" talk. It makes it sound like you are calling other people here that, and it makes you sound very intolerant and a bit of a bigot.
My only purpose here is to engage in dialogue with bright folks on political issues of the day. I've always been a politico; I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative when I was in junior high school. I remember on a family visit to Massachusetts I insisted on stopping and browsing around in an American Opinion bookstore. I was far more ideological and confrontational in my younger days. With age has come the crucial insight that most all of us, regardless of political label, want what's best for the nation. There's nothing wrong with pragmatism, and compromise and conciliation. Nor with being decent and accommodating to others, which is why that baker annoys me - would it have hurt him to just bake the cake he said he would? Since when is a cake shop the proper forum for a religious crusade?
I've gained a lot of insight from the numerous intelligent and, yes, diverse posters here. I'm of the view that "conservatism" comes in a variety of forms, and that the current Republican coalition is an uneasy one, especially following the recent rise of the TEA party and the even more recent insurgency by the Trump nationalists. Neither of these recent strains particularly speaks to me - I'm too old school for that - but that's not what's important. I want to see the center/right coalition that is the GOP hang together, unlike many who want to take their marbles and go a third party that adheres more closely to their view of ideological purity. Because if it doesn't, the path will be clear for the liberals to have their way.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?
If this was just about 'baking a lousy cake', then why then did the couple, who went elsewhere to get their cake baked, like they properly should, choose to make this a topic before the state entity?
I cannot find exactly when their complaint was lodged, but it appears to be months after they had already found their cake and had their reception.
Reason: It was not about the cake. They are the ones who without a doubt appear petty and mean, certainly not the guy who in 20 seconds with them told them he could not bake the cake.
And why is the baker taking this up to get this decided before the courts and public opinion?
Because this is the order which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission thrust like a bully down his throat:
the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
You think it mean and petty for the baker to take 'em on with some help?
I think it mean and petty for Colorado Civil Rights Commission to make someone grovel before them like that.
It is high time we the people expose the belligerent government's abuse of citizens.
-
My only purpose here is to engage in dialogue with bright folks on political issues of the day. I've always been a politico; I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative when I was in junior high school. I remember on a family visit to Massachusetts I insisted on stopping and browsing around in an American Opinion bookstore. I was far more ideological and confrontational in my younger days. With age has come the crucial insight that most all of us, regardless of political label, want what's best for the nation. There's nothing wrong with pragmatism, and compromise and conciliation. Nor with being decent and accommodating to others, which is why that baker annoys me - would it have hurt him to just bake the cake he said he would? Since when is a cake shop the proper forum for a religious crusade?
I've gained a lot of insight from the numerous intelligent and, yes, diverse posters here. I'm of the view that "conservatism" comes in a variety of forms, and that the current Republican coalition is an uneasy one, especially following the recent rise of the TEA party and the even more recent insurgency by the Trump nationalists. Neither of these recent strains particularly speaks to me - I'm too old school for that - but that's not what's important. I want to see the center/right coalition that is the GOP hang together, unlike many who want to take their marbles and go a third party that adheres more closely to their view of ideological purity. Because if it doesn't, the path will be clear for the liberals to have their way.
Seems to me the current republican brand is doing that currently.
-
Oh - and just a hint: you might want to drop all of the "intolerance and bigotry" talk. It makes it sound like you are calling other people here that, and it makes you sound very intolerant and a bit of a bigot.
Not to sound like I am excusing your admonition to Jazzhead, but I openly confess and have admitted that I am proudly intolerant of wickedness and firmly bigoted and prejudiced against those pushing acceptance of deviant behavior by putting a gun to our heads to force compliance.
The difference is that my definition of wickedness and evil is from the bible, and his definition of wickedness are those who reference and abide by what the bible teaches.
-
Not to sound like I am excusing your admonition to Jazzhead, but I openly confess and have admitted that I am proudly intolerant of wickedness and firmly bigoted and prejudiced against those pushing acceptance of deviant behavior by putting a gun to our heads to force compliance.
The difference is that my definition of wickedness and evil is from the bible, and his definition of wickedness are those who reference and abide by what the bible teaches.
That's correct and I would extend that admonition to you also.
-
Question: should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)? Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements? Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?
-
Question: should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)? Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements? Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?
Yes, and they already are - At least google is, Demonetizing right-facing and Christian groups on youtoob. Which is fine - Alternatives rise up.
-
Yes, and they already are - At least google is, Demonetizing right-facing and Christian groups on youtoob. Which is fine - Alternatives rise up.
Fair enough. Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives.
-
It serves as a reminder of the fight we are up against, and shows how perverted some can be when it comes to interpretation of what is within the Constitution.
Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?
According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.
-
Question: should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)? Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements? Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?
I don't know how the law works, but I suspect once they take an action based on content (other than something like a DCRM infringement or by court order) it puts them in the position that they have some responsibility for ALL content. As far as the RIGHT to do so....
ISP? Probably not. Too close to, in some cases, and effective monopoly in others.
Google? Yes.
DNS? Not the root servers, but if you have a third party administer DNS for your domain then yes.
However, I don't think this is a proper analogy. The question would be, IMO, should a website designer be able to refuse to create a right of center website? And my answer is absolutely.
-
Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?
According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.
Could you point me to the section of the Constitution that deals with commercial activities.
-
Fair enough. Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives.
Google itself is an alternative to Yahoo which once ruled search.
-
Google itself is an alternative to Yahoo which once ruled search.
Yes, but yahoo had more or less the same politics. I don't see googles market share losing out to a right-wing friendly system any time soon.
-
Fair enough. Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives.
A lot of Youtube providers are moving off, or being kicked off... A lot are moving to steem because it is distributed in block-chain fashion. Dailymotion, of course, GodTube...
And dns is just a name... a simple website or IRC with links to IP gets around... That's how hackers publish already. 'Deep web' LOL!
And one thing about our wildly liberal IT fellows. Nearly every single one will fight to his last breath to keep the net open and free. I will hang a lot on that.
-
Could you point me to the section of the Constitution that deals with commercial activities.
"Commerce Clause" and "Necessary and Proper Clause."
-
A lot of Youtube providers are moving off, or being kicked off... A lot are moving to steem because it is distributed in block-chain fashion. Dailymotion, of course, GodTube...
And dns is just a name... a simple website or IRC with links to IP gets around... That's how hackers publish already. 'Deep web' LOL!
And one thing about our wildly liberal IT fellows. Nearly every single one will fight to his last breath to keep the net open and free. I will hang a lot on that.
If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals.
-
Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?
According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.
No, I do not wish to leave it up to future court opinions and interpretation.
The Constitution is fundamentally not a 'rights' document. It is instead a 'limiting' document towards the federal government and to how much of the power inherent within the people is extended to the government.
As such, the people are the fundamental interpreter of the Constitution, not some court. Can YOU point where in the Constitution the power to interpret the Constitution resides?
-
Yes, but yahoo had more or less the same politics. I don't see googles market share losing out to a right-wing friendly system any time soon.
I don't either (maybe bing, I don't use it), but then I didn't see anyone taking out yahoo at the time. A guy can hope.
-
If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals.
Hard to do as long as Conservative sites physically exist - Too many folks like you and me out there that will know how to get there. And ISP filters and backbone routers don't work against an onion router (as you know)... Everything upstream from that can be handled otherwise.
And again, block chain. Pretty hard to manipulate that. It works for more than electronic money.
-
I don't either (maybe bing, I don't use it), but then I didn't see anyone taking out yahoo at the time. A guy can hope.
Startpage rakes google results without filters and injections. You'll be surprised how different the data return is.
-
If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals.
And btw, I do recognize that what you say is coming... But I think you'll be surprised which side the hackers fall on - Hacker in the classical sense...
-
No, I do not wish to leave it up to future court opinions and interpretation.
The Constitution is fundamentally not a 'rights' document. It is instead a 'limiting' document towards the federal government and to how much of the power inherent within the people is extended to the government.
As such, the people are the fundamental interpreter of the Constitution, not some court. Can YOU point where in the Constitution the power to interpret the Constitution resides?
Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
-
Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
Almost, but not quite true. All it would take is a Congress jealous of it's duty and power. But yeah... That's a pipe dream.
-
Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
Under our Constitution, courts render opinions and have exactly zero power to enforce any of them on anyone.
-
Almost, but not quite true. All it would take is a Congress jealous of it's duty and power. But yeah... That's a pipe dream.
Nope. You still need the courts. The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate. Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees. At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means.
-
Under our Constitution, courts render opinions and have exactly zero power to enforce any of them on anyone.
No, courts decide how the law applies to the facts of a particular case, and that means they determine what the law is. Any member of the executive who refuses to carry out a lawful order of a court is himself breaking the law.
-
Nope. You still need the courts. The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate. Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees. At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means.
All that until they abuse the law they are supposed to interpret - Impeachment belongs to Congress.
-
All that until they abuse the law they are supposed to interpret - Impeachment belongs to Congress.
Of course. But impeachment does not change the meaning of the law, it merely removes the judge who is successfully impeached. It doesn't invalidate a single judgment, opinion, or order of that judge.
-
Of course. But impeachment does not change the meaning of the law, it merely removes the judge who is successfully impeached. It doesn't invalidate a single judgment, opinion, or order of that judge.
Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.
As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.
-
Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.
As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.
The jealously of the Congressional power stops at the edge of their desire to claim responsibility for their action. They are more than happy to let the Courts take the heat for their inaction.
-
The jealously of the Congressional power stops at the edge of their desire to claim responsibility for their action. They are more than happy to let the Courts take the heat for their inaction.
Like I said, barring a literalist, federalist inclined majority in Congress, and maybe even then, as I said upstream, a pipe dream.
-
Nope. You still need the courts. The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate. Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees. At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means.
That is complete BS.
The Founders never gave this power to any court. The courts serve the people, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact made on the altar of unelected officials.
There is just so much false representations out there and the power of a court. It is not the end-all as so many ill-informed in civics think it is.
Congress and Executive do not have to resort to the court to understand what is in the Constitution.
-
Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.
As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.
Which is why impeachment is a difficult thing to accomplish. The Founders did not want Congress routinely impeaching judges just because they didn't like a ruling or two. And hence, why it is not a tool Congress can use to force the courts to be compliant lapdogs.
A Congress that routinely impeached judges would be a Congress that overstepped it's bounds.
-
That is complete BS.
The Founders never gave this power to any court. The courts serve the people, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact made on the altar of unelected officials.
There is just so much false representations out there and the power of a court. It is not the end-all as so many ill-informed in civics think it is.
Congress and Executive do not have to resort to the court to understand what is in the Constitution.
It is an inevitable corollary to the fact that the judicial power is vested in the courts and of the way in which a common law system works. Judicial review is inevitable.
Congress enacts laws, it does not enforce them, so the only way to find out if Congress got it right about what the Constitution meant is for a law to be tested in court, and that court will only go along with Congress if it believes that Congress got it right. Again, the courts are the ultimate arbiters for what the Constitution means in the only way that matters: what it means when it's enforced against someone who is an unwilling participant.
-
It is an inevitable corollary to the fact that the judicial power is vested in the courts and of the way in which a common law system works. Judicial review is inevitable.
Congress enacts laws, it does not enforce them, so the only way to find out if Congress got it right about what the Constitution meant is for a law to be tested in court, and that court will only go along with Congress if it believes that Congress got it right. Again, the courts are the ultimate arbiters for what the Constitution means in the only way that matters: what it means when it's enforced against someone who is an unwilling participant.
You have been schooled in too may law classes that support their own well-being.
You are giving way too much power to a court. Nothing in the Constitution even begins to say that only a court can claim jurisdiction on the content of the Constitution. That power is only ASSUMED, not given.
The way you are describing, Congress can only act if a court thinks the Constitution allows it. BS. Congress reads the Constitution and can decide what its own role is, without a court. If Congress and Executive permits a court to decide what Congress or Executive can do, then all law-making is being ceded to the Judicial.
That is anarchy and rule by a mob of black robes.
-
Which is why impeachment is a difficult thing to accomplish. The Founders did not want Congress routinely impeaching judges just because they didn't like a ruling or two. And hence, why it is not a tool Congress can use to force the courts to be compliant lapdogs.
A Congress that routinely impeached judges would be a Congress that overstepped it's bounds.
When the courts render decisions out of thin air, in the volumes set forth in the past three decades, no, an activist Congress would not be overstepping it's bounds, be it by impeachment or legislation.
-
All we have to do it let people sue each other to sort things out. That way, lawyers can get rich on the fees.
-
Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
You completely misunderstand who "the people" are.
It is those elected by the citizens of this country - Congress and Executive - that are representatives of the citizens.
Those in black robes are - you know, the unelected ones - definitely do not represent "the people".
-
You completely misunderstand who "the people" are.
It is those elected by the citizens of this country - Congress and Executive - that are representatives of the citizens.
Those in black robes are - you know, the unelected ones - definitely do not represent "the people".
Precisely right - An out-of-control judiciary is within the jurisdiction of Congress... And the Executive can choose not to enforce...
-
No, courts decide how the law applies to the facts of a particular case, and that means they determine what the law is. Any member of the executive who refuses to carry out a lawful order of a court is himself breaking the law.
You being an officer of the court, I have no doubt that you believe that. The fact that you do does not make it true however.
-
Precisely right - An out-of-control judiciary is within the jurisdiction of Congress... And the Executive can choose not to enforce...
Lawyers believe they and their profession are the end-all. Not even close. No court can enforce its orders, it must rely upon a compliant public or Congress or Executive.
-
@MOD3 - Hey, I found it!
This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake. Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
The baker in question did offer to bake a cake for the customers in question. He simply declined to make a type of cake that he does not offer.
(The sexual preference of those two customers is unknown. Only a bigot would make assumptions in this regard.)
So your premise is completely without merit. And if you can't even get the first premise right, what does that say for your argument?
Imagine for a moment that you owned a business where you made cuckoo clocks out of wood. Someone comes into your shop and orders a cuckoo clock made out of dragon tree wood. You flatly refuse, while offering to make the clock out of some other type of wood. You may have refused because you are a member of an arbor conservation society and recognize dragon trees as being endangered. Or you may have refused because you have an allergy to dragon tree wood. Or perhaps you refused because you have a select set of woods that you work with, and limit your clock making to woods on that list. It really doesn't matter why. All that matters is that commerce is an exchange between buyer and seller, and if either side balks, there is no commerce. The buyer cannot be compelled to buy. And the seller cannot be compelled to sell. It is an open exchange where both parties agree at a certain price.
Yet you are willing to discard the very heart and soul of commerce and replace it with the tyranny of your will. This has become a habit with you.
-
Business owners are rich, and therefore not virtuous. /s