NationStates

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So where does the bible explicitly demand that homosexuals be discriminated against?

The Bible explicitly forbids Christians from practicing sexual immorality, in both Testaments. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and sodomy as sinful abominations, in both Testaments. This includes a refusal to participate in pro-LGBT events.
(Besides, this fundamentalist baker has been frequented by many LGBT customers and he never denied them service until they tried to shake him down into celebrating homosexuality.)

The Bible orders Christians to follow the law and submit to the state unless the state compels them to defy/renounce God and/or to participate in sin. This is a clear-cut case of that very matter: honor God and possibly go to prison or bankruptcy, or kneel before the altar of sodomy and defy one's Christian fundamentalism.

The free expression of religion does not end at the threshold of the church vestibule.

So nothing explicitly commanding them to discriminate against homosexuals then.

Vassenor wrote:
So where does the bible explicitly demand that homosexuals be discriminated against?

Nice to see you're not even trying to approach this from a neutral frame of reference.

It doesn't. It does say that homosexuality is a sin and to cut off your right hand rather than allow yourself to sin (which would include facilitating a sin). I'm a firm believer that the Kentucky marriage clerk and this guy should have put their money where their mouths are and quit making cakes/their jobs. That's the hard thing. As a Christian, I'm not going to fucking martyr myself for fifteen minutes of fame or some misguided idea that I'm "doing this for God". Doing it for God is doing the hard thing and going without the job, not where you have legal organizations pay your rent and people shouting your name for a week or two. They seem to forget that God is bigger than their money and their laws.

---

Also let's look at CRCC's ruling on the matter. It wasn't limited to the cake or the insults.

The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; 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."

These are courts, not parade grounds.

Reverend Norv wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?

For a start, don't say that homophobic cakes reflect speech by the baker, who is therefore excused from making them, while gay wedding cakes exclusively reflect speech by the customer, obliging the baker to make them. Laws of general application have to be applied generally. As a legal definition of tolerance, that's as good a place to start as any. Auralia's right that Kennedy clearly thinks that this stinks to high heaven, and while - as Kagan pointed out - there are ways around the problem, that imbalance shouldn't sit well with any of us.

More broadly: activists are free to be as intolerant of each other as they want. But the state cannot make its decisions out of hostility, because there are no enemies of the state in a free society. That's why the principle of tolerance, in the resolution of these disputes, has to be paramount - however intolerant the parties to those disputes may sometimes be.

Homophobic comments can be argued if it's not part of the normal practice of the baker. As in making demands outside of the normal product. I agree on that. If the guys were asking for cake toppers, writing yea! gay is cool! Suck it Christians!, etc. I can see him refusing and agree with it. The problem is this didn't even get to the design phase so how is art an argument? He claimed to be an artist? Well I haven't seen all of his works. He had a couple that were interesting but the majority seems to be anything your basic cake maker can do. The fact he considers himself an artist seems more like a legal argument then an actually label(well? Maybe in Colorado he is). People remember artists. They don't tend to remember cake makers. But I admit to being "jaded" as I have seen cake artwork in New York.

I still don't see how you can have tolerance in play when you have intolerant people. Punish them but be nice about it?

The Black Forrest wrote:

The South Falls wrote:The NC2A is actually doing things. The GOA... maybe not...

Would the baker shoot hoops with the gays?

Or just shoot the gays and claim they were trying to sodomize him.

Reverend Norv wrote:

Kramanica wrote:They're still allowed access to services. They're simply not willing to bake them a cake for this specific circumstance.

That's not how public accomodations law works. To quote the decision again, the point in civil rights laws is to protect certain classes of persons "in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” So if they want a wedding cake, they should be able to get it on the same terms and conditions as everybody else, "lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons." And the courts have held since at least the 1960s that the government has every right to pass laws to combat that community-wide stigma.

Then it would be prudent to change the laws since they are unconstitutional.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.

That's some rather interesting mental gymnastics.

It's not any more "interesting" than the post to which I was responding. The idea that a pro-gay baker can legitimately refuse to make a cake that quotes anti-sodomy verses in the Bible is equally "interesting."

If any principle can be derived from today's decision, it's that states must apply their anti-discrimination statutes equally. If you're going to force bakers to make pro-gay cakes, then you must force bakers to make anti-gay cakes too.

It's not a great principle. In my personal view, nobody should be forced to create art for anybody else.

Reverend Norv wrote:Laws of general application have to be applied generally.

Indeed. That's why your post above, attempting to differentiate the pro-gay and anti-gay cake cases, is unpersuasive.

Vassenor wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
The Bible explicitly forbids Christians from practicing sexual immorality, in both Testaments. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and sodomy as sinful abominations, in both Testaments. This includes a refusal to participate in pro-LGBT events.
(Besides, this fundamentalist baker has been frequented by many LGBT customers and he never denied them service until they tried to shake him down into celebrating homosexuality.)

The Bible orders Christians to follow the law and submit to the state unless the state compels them to defy/renounce God and/or to participate in sin. This is a clear-cut case of that very matter: honor God and possibly go to prison or bankruptcy, or kneel before the altar of sodomy and defy one's Christian fundamentalism.

The free expression of religion does not end at the threshold of the church vestibule.

So nothing explicitly commanding them to discriminate against homosexuals then.

They are not supposed to participate in immoral acts or aid others in doing them. Fairly simple and straightforward, so it's understandable you don't get it.

West Leas Oros wrote:

Bakra wrote:It was sarcasm.

Usually you need to specify if you’re being sarcastic. Use this face :^)

Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

The Black Forrest wrote:

West Leas Oros wrote:Usually you need to specify if you’re being sarcastic. Use this face :^)

Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

Good. Why shouldn't a baker be allowed to have his say on what he can and can't bake for a customer?

Christian Democrats wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:That's some rather interesting mental gymnastics.

It's not any more "interesting" than the post to which I was responding. The idea that a pro-gay baker can legitimately refuse to make a cake that quotes anti-sodomy verses in the Bible is equally "interesting."

If any principle can be derived from today's decision, it's that states must apply their anti-discrimination statutes equally. If you're going to force bakers to make pro-gay cakes, then you must force bakers to make anti-gay cakes too.

It's your delivery. It's not anti LGBT because the hetro mother was refused as well.

There is a difference well at least what was stated as it never got to the design phase. They said they wanted a nice cake. No gay references.

I

The Black Forrest wrote:

West Leas Oros wrote:Usually you need to specify if you’re being sarcastic. Use this face :^)

Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

Brace yourself. Summer has begun. :^)

Right wing humour squad wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

That's going in my Signature.

Right wing humour squad wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

Oh geez lol

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Right wing humour squad wrote:Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

That's going in my Signature.

Damn. I was gonna use that!

Right wing humour squad wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Especially when we have the annual stormfront migrations. :^)

Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

What's your tumblr account?

Kramanica wrote:

Reverend Norv wrote:
That's not how public accomodations law works. To quote the decision again, the point in civil rights laws is to protect certain classes of persons "in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” So if they want a wedding cake, they should be able to get it on the same terms and conditions as everybody else, "lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons." And the courts have held since at least the 1960s that the government has every right to pass laws to combat that community-wide stigma.

Then it would be prudent to change the laws since they are unconstitutional.

We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Right wing humour squad wrote:
Nothing wrong with annual stormfront migrations when you have year round tumblr attendance.

What's your tumblr account?

It’s been so long, something about donuts I do believe.

Right wing humour squad wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
What's your tumblr account?

It’s been so long, something about donuts I do believe.

I have one under my old game company mod name. Haven't done anything with it......

Reverend Norv wrote:

Kramanica wrote:Then it would be prudent to change the laws since they are unconstitutional.

We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The courts having their opinions does not mean I can't have my own.

Kramanica wrote:

Reverend Norv wrote:
We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The courts having their opinions does not mean I can't have my own.

Big brother is watching.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Reverend Norv wrote:Laws of general application have to be applied generally.

Indeed. That's why your post above, attempting to differentiate the pro-gay and anti-gay cake cases, is unpersuasive.

At the very least, it's counterintuitive. That doesn't necessarily mean it's inconsistent with the law as written, or with precedent, and so it might hold up. But I think it's fair to say that we should be at least a bit squirmy about Kagan's argument.

Cryptomypt wrote:Good. Why shouldn't a baker be allowed to have his say on what he can and can't bake for a customer?

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

Kramanica wrote:

Reverend Norv wrote:
We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The courts having their opinions does not mean I can't have my own.

Of course. But your opinion is not law. The Court's opinion is. In the real world, there's a difference.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Right wing humour squad wrote:
It’s been so long, something about donuts I do believe.

I have one under my old game company mod name. Haven't done anything with it......

Yeah it got to easy to lead the feminists on. They will throw their toys out at anything.