Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[Gulo Blue]

Oh, look who just stepped on to a slippery slope.

Everyone who's religion used a substance later classified as an illegal narcotic by the DEA is interested in hearing where you go with this.

I don't see the connection.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's also absurd because the teachings of Christ are so unequivocable in terms of showing mercy and brotherhood to all people, period, with no exclusions, that for someone to claim their Christian faith has lead them to discriminate, it just shows how little they understand their own faith.

I realized a long time ago - back even when I still considered myself Catholic - that for most people, religion is just their gang affiliation. a tribal identifier. They've mindlessly picked a side, - or more likely were brought up in it - and they're sticking to it.

If you try to take them at their word, that they have sincere religious beliefs then you just end up confused how someone could refuse to do something for someone based on who that person is, then on Sunday go listen to their priest say "when you do this for the least of my brothers, you do it for me."

A lot of what he said was anti-authoritarian with regard to the existing religious power of the time. I think people don't make the connection because nobody calls themself a "Pharisee" anymore. Replace it with "church leader" and it would be more effective.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It's also absurd because the teachings of Christ are so unequivocable in terms of showing mercy and brotherhood to all people, period, with no exclusions, that for someone to claim their Christian faith has lead them to discriminate, it just shows how little they understand their own faith.

That?s just not true.


Jesus did not treat the money lenders at the temple with mercy and brotherhood at all.
He kicked their asses out of there with extreme prejudice.

So there is an example right there of how Jesus responded to what he perceived was a violation of his religion.

There is no record of how Jesus might have responded to a gay couple asking them to build him a wedding bed.

 

[Michchamp]

That?s just not true.


Jesus did not treat the money lenders at the temple with mercy and brotherhood at all.
He kicked their asses out of there with extreme prejudice.

So there is an example right there of how Jesus responded to what he perceived was a violation of his religion.

There is no record of how Jesus might have responded to a gay couple asking them to build him a wedding bed.

Yeah, I don't think he was a big fan of profiteering or capitalism in general, accumulating wealth, or rich people.

You're 100% right about that. hey, I'm okay not treating some plutocrat as my brother either.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't see the connection.

That's okay.

They argued their religious identification was sufficient to allow them to ignore state policy/law.

Then you get into who is a legit member of the religion, and are their beliefs sincere, and the state really should not be doing that.

you have beliefs... fine. it's then up to the courts to say whether they'll uphold the law as constitutional if it infringes on those beliefs, based on logical, prior judicial holdings and reasoning.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Also, he was put to death by a reluctant government prodded by religious leaders.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's okay.

They argued their religious identification was sufficient to allow them to ignore state policy/law.

Then you get into who is a legit member of the religion, and are their beliefs sincere, and the state really should not be doing that.

you have beliefs... fine. it's then up to the courts to say whether they'll uphold the law as constitutional if it infringes on those beliefs, based on logical, prior judicial holdings and reasoning.

I disagreed with the idea that a denial of service should be described as "pushing your religion". What does that have to do with what's allowable by law?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Gods law, whichever of the 4200 of them you worship, does NOT go before our nation's law.

If a person looks at the Constitution as being about the structure and function of government up to the Bill of Rights, as one could, the right to choose whichever of the 4200 of God's laws is actually the first law of our nation regarding the rights and behaviors of the People, included with the freedom of speech.

Now, obviously a person can't commit a crime of aggression and claim they have a right to do so because it's their religion, and aggressive speech can be limited by the government in cases in which it poses a public safety hazard.

As we know, "freedom of religion" is not the wording of the First Amendment, but it's been interpreted to mean that judicially numerous times.

As I read the basics of the decision, it seemed as much if it not more a freedom of speech decision as it was a freedom of religion decision.

The baker was seen as rightfully expressing his freedom of speech by not expressing his moral acceptance of the marriage - again, if it was me I would have baked them their cake dressed in a sexy (or slutty) Halloween outfit, decorated it however they wanted it, and let them videotape the whole thing - I don't give a shit if two folks of the same sex wanna get married, knock yourselves out, I says.

But the baker has the constitutional right to refuse participation. I view the couple as trying to impose their own moral beliefs on the baker, not the other way around.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Oh, look who just stepped on to a slippery slope.

Everyone who's religion used a substance later classified as an illegal narcotic by the DEA is interested in hearing where you go with this.

From the Pew Research Center.

This looks to be from a ruling back in 2016 - I can't find anything pertaining to any rulings on the issue since.

This seems to be a pretty good explanation of the exemption with regard to First Amendment protections and the function of the DEA.

EDIT: Oh, also, if a person uses a drug and it's later classified as narcotic - we're protected from being charged with a crime for that. It's the 3rd clause of the 9th section of the 1st Article.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

 

[tomdalton22]

Also, he was put to death by a reluctant government prodded by religious leaders.

It's quite possible that him being put to death and coming back to life 3 days later was a ruse. It wouldn't be the first time a "religious leader" faked something in order to get more followers.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It's quite possible that him being put to death and coming back to life 3 days later was a ruse. It wouldn't be the first time a "religious leader" faked something in order to get more followers.

So maybe he didn't die that day?

Maybe not; who knows...

 

[Spartanmack]

Agree to disagree I guess. When one says they are refusing to do their job based on religious beliefs I see that as pushing their religion.

that's practicing their religion, not evangelizing or "pushing their religion." pushing their religion is when they do things like show up on your doorstep and try to get you to join their church.

 

[Michchamp]

that's practicing their religion, not evangelizing or "pushing their religion." pushing their religion is when they do things like show up on your doorstep and try to get you to join their church.

Running a cake business is a core Christian value.

"Blessed are the cake makers," Jesus said. "Do this in memory of me."

"And though thou'st may bake birthday, New Years, Christmas, Easter, or Fourth Of July cakes for the sodomites, do not bake them matrimonial cakes. this is the Lord's decree, and Woe unto he who disobeys it."

 

[Spartanmack]

Running a cake business is a core Christian value.

"Blessed are the cake makers," Jesus said. "Do this in memory of me."

"And though thou'st may bake birthday, New Years, Christmas, Easter, or Fourth Of July cakes for the sodomites, do not bake them matrimonial cakes. this is the Lord's decree, and Woe unto he who disobeys it."

twice in one day you've debunked an argument no one is making - you're on a roll.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don?t know how much baking people in Israel in the time of Jesus did. I?m also pretty sure there was no concept of same-sex marriage at all. Also they didn?t have the Fourth of July.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don’t know how much baking people in Israel in the time of Jesus did. I’m also pretty sure there was no concept of same-sex marriage at all. Also they didn’t have the Fourth of July.

EDIT: Possibly there was new year but that would’ve been a Roman thing, and the calendar was not even a century old by then. It would have been odd for anyone to celebrate Christmas, and obviously Jesus’s lifetime would have a pre-dated Easter.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Running a cake business is a core Christian value.

"Blessed are the cake makers," Jesus said. "Do this in memory of me."

"And though thou'st may bake birthday, New Years, Christmas, Easter, or Fourth Of July cakes for the sodomites, do not bake them matrimonial cakes. this is the Lord's decree, and Woe unto he who disobeys it."

The very first sentence or two ?sounds? a little bit like the way Jesus is depicted.

After that, it reads more like Charlton Heston as Moses.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Question gets tricky in the context of someone that can multiply baked good.


The water to wine conversion was for a wedding.

 

[b311j]

So maybe he didn't die that day?

Maybe not; who knows...

Maybe he never even existed....:shrug:

 

[tinselwolverine]

Maybe he never even existed....:shrug:

There is evidence that Jewish and Roman historians chronicled the existence of a dude named Jesus who existed at the time and in the place and rose to some level of folk lore status, not long after his lifetime, and unrelated to Christian scripture.

The Guardian.

This is one article.

A person can find others.

A person can also find articles and studies that argue he more likely didn't actually even exist.

So who knows...