quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Outside of some arcane Mormon text (I'm assuming it's in the Book of Mormon), what religion denies people of color? Are there any verses in the Bible that oppose homosexuality?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

homosexuality is a sin

No it is not all right to say or believe it... people are created this way...there is no choice... Now this sexual preference is either the fault of scrambled instructions in the womb or God created them that way. Either of those ways are NOT SIN.

Butch

quote:

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
You seem to assume I have no religious beliefs of my own. Or that I don't strive to be a good Christian. That would be false.
As a Christian myself, I find the religious beliefs argument in this case difficult to swallow and morally offensive. I've already quoted scripture as to why. But here it is again:
Matthew 22

quote:

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love thy neighbor. Not love thy neighbors except Gary, cuz he's a freak. Just love thy neighbor.

To be honest, I don't give a fuck what your beliefs are, or how you interpret Bible scriptures. Who gave you the right to define for someone else what their religious walk is? I suppose I could just walk up to my neighbor and start masturbating her, right? I mean, that's how I "love" myself....

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But just as we cannot allow Shari'a law to hijack our country, neither can we allow Christian beliefs to continue to deny basic civil rights to GLBTQ+ Americans.

Basic rights? Is there a "basic civil right" to have a particular cake shop decorate a wedding cake? How about not letting government encroach on someone's right to exercise his religion? Noooo, can't have that.

There are State rights, and Colorado chose to provide protections for LGBTQ+ against discrimination. I believe that law is fair and just because it is evenly applied to everyone in the State, regardless of their religious beliefs.
There are so many reasons for people of faith to disapprove even a heterosexual marriage, and they are allowed to do so. But has there ever been a reported instance of those disapprovals resulting in a denial of service? Not since Jim Crowe laws allowed blacks and interracial couples to be denied. And yes, some chose to use their religious beliefs as their reasoning at the time.

Outside of some arcane Mormon text (I'm assuming it's in the Book of Mormon), what religion denies people of color? Are there any verses in the Bible that oppose homosexuality?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I am being quite real in my complaint. If a single business has a valid excuse for denying service to any class of people, then every business has that same right. Christianity is the most common religion in our country, so it would not be a surprise if a solid majority of bakeries would be Christian-owned, and also choose to deny service. And it could spread to every business related to weddings, effectively becoming a great pain in the ass for gay couples to do business at all.

Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game? Will government have the authority to force a kosher or halal eatery to serve pork products, or non-kosher/halal foods? I got it!! How about we should be allowed to get Big Macs at Burger King (ok that's a bad example, as there is that Big King sandwich, but they chose to do it, and weren't forced to (for the save!)).
Should any church of a homosexual couple be forced to perform their wedding ceremony?

Be forced to? No.

Why not? I mean, they're only not doing them due to religious beliefs....

quote:

quote:

quote:

I have no idea how many other bakeries are reasonably near Masterpiece that bake wedding cakes, nor the quality of any of them. But anywhere in America, competition could be right across the street, or 100 miles away.

So, you don't know? Considering it's less than 10 miles from Denver, I'm going to hazard a guess there are plenty (according to theknot.com, there are 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO). Masterpiece may be the very best. But, that doesn't mean they have to break their faith for a homosexual couple's custom wedding cake.
Since it's not letting me link, here's the link: https://www.theknot.com/marketplace/wedding-cake-bakeries-lakewood-co?distance=within-10-miles&offset=30
The Market will take care of these things, anyway. It likely won't be as quick as government fiat, but it would be organic and, imo, the right way to have it happen. No one is forced to purchase anything there. If you go to theknot and to the Masterpiece Cakeshop page, you'll see a couple bad reviews based on their unwillingness to make a cake for a homosexual family celebration, and they aren't the only 5-star rated bakery in the 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO.

It is wonderful to have options, and I'm sure the couple managed to find a cake in time. That does not negate the fact that the bakery violated Colorado's law.

quote:

quote:

In your opinion, homosexuals have a greater right to purchase a custom-created wedding cake from whomever they choose than a cake decorator's right to worship and exercise his religion as he sees fit. Get real.

No. In my opinion, homosexuals have been denied equal rights and opportunities for far too long, in many ways because of religious beliefs. To make certain that cannot continue, some protections must be provided for homosexuals, to defend their freedoms, especially as the country adjusts to gay marriage.

quote:



The marriage took place in a different State. Which is why this is such a poor case to use as future precedent. Gay marriage had not been declared a legal right by the Court yet, and had Colorado not already given special protections based on sexual preference, there would be no case.

You say it's about a greater right, but I say it's about a greater need to protect an equal right. There is a difference.

quote:

And it is especially important for government to protect minorities from being persecuted and ostracized by those claiming religious beliefs that may directly oppose that minority's right to live, much less any equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
And there is growing support of that belief. Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

And how did a baker all of a sudden become the great artist... how is baking a cake any more artistic then a carpenter... a brick layer... a concrete contractor. What about a seamstress or tailor... on and on with with little thought.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
You seem to assume I have no religious beliefs of my own. Or that I don't strive to be a good Christian. That would be false.
As a Christian myself, I find the religious beliefs argument in this case difficult to swallow and morally offensive. I've already quoted scripture as to why. But here it is again:
Matthew 22

quote:

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love thy neighbor. Not love thy neighbors except Gary, cuz he's a freak. Just love thy neighbor.

To be honest, I don't give a fuck what your beliefs are, or how you interpret Bible scriptures. Who gave you the right to define for someone else what their religious walk is? I suppose I could just walk up to my neighbor and start masturbating her, right? I mean, that's how I "love" myself....

And I don't give a fuck how bigots interpret the Bible or the Constitution. Examples like you've given here aren't worthy of comment.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But just as we cannot allow Shari'a law to hijack our country, neither can we allow Christian beliefs to continue to deny basic civil rights to GLBTQ+ Americans.

Basic rights? Is there a "basic civil right" to have a particular cake shop decorate a wedding cake? How about not letting government encroach on someone's right to exercise his religion? Noooo, can't have that.

There are State rights, and Colorado chose to provide protections for LGBTQ+ against discrimination. I believe that law is fair and just because it is evenly applied to everyone in the State, regardless of their religious beliefs.
There are so many reasons for people of faith to disapprove even a heterosexual marriage, and they are allowed to do so. But has there ever been a reported instance of those disapprovals resulting in a denial of service? Not since Jim Crowe laws allowed blacks and interracial couples to be denied. And yes, some chose to use their religious beliefs as their reasoning at the time.

Outside of some arcane Mormon text (I'm assuming it's in the Book of Mormon), what religion denies people of color? Are there any verses in the Bible that oppose homosexuality?

https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042/

quote:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystematictheology/2016/09/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-and-white-supremacy/

quote:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31088/what-were-the-scriptural-arguments-used-for-modern-western-racism
Yes, there are quotes in the Bible that can be read to speak in favor of segregation and racial purity. I think the earliest of these is the Tower of Babel.

quote:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


Source: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-1-27/

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I am being quite real in my complaint. If a single business has a valid excuse for denying service to any class of people, then every business has that same right. Christianity is the most common religion in our country, so it would not be a surprise if a solid majority of bakeries would be Christian-owned, and also choose to deny service. And it could spread to every business related to weddings, effectively becoming a great pain in the ass for gay couples to do business at all.

Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game? Will government have the authority to force a kosher or halal eatery to serve pork products, or non-kosher/halal foods? I got it!! How about we should be allowed to get Big Macs at Burger King (ok that's a bad example, as there is that Big King sandwich, but they chose to do it, and weren't forced to (for the save!)).
Should any church of a homosexual couple be forced to perform their wedding ceremony?

Be forced to? No.

Why not? I mean, they're only not doing them due to religious beliefs....

Yes, and not every couple is automatically guaranteed approval for a church wedding in all churches.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I have no idea how many other bakeries are reasonably near Masterpiece that bake wedding cakes, nor the quality of any of them. But anywhere in America, competition could be right across the street, or 100 miles away.

So, you don't know? Considering it's less than 10 miles from Denver, I'm going to hazard a guess there are plenty (according to theknot.com, there are 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO). Masterpiece may be the very best. But, that doesn't mean they have to break their faith for a homosexual couple's custom wedding cake.
Since it's not letting me link, here's the link: https://www.theknot.com/marketplace/wedding-cake-bakeries-lakewood-co?distance=within-10-miles&offset=30
The Market will take care of these things, anyway. It likely won't be as quick as government fiat, but it would be organic and, imo, the right way to have it happen. No one is forced to purchase anything there. If you go to theknot and to the Masterpiece Cakeshop page, you'll see a couple bad reviews based on their unwillingness to make a cake for a homosexual family celebration, and they aren't the only 5-star rated bakery in the 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO.

It is wonderful to have options, and I'm sure the couple managed to find a cake in time. That does not negate the fact that the bakery violated Colorado's law.

The law could be an unConstitutional law, too. I'm sure the couple got a cake for their wedding. And, I bet they were damn happy with the cake they got (that is, they loved their wedding cake).

quote:

quote:

In your opinion, homosexuals have a greater right to purchase a custom-created wedding cake from whomever they choose than a cake decorator's right to worship and exercise his religion as he sees fit. Get real.

No. In my opinion, homosexuals have been denied equal rights and opportunities for far too long, in many ways because of religious beliefs. To make certain that cannot continue, some protections must be provided for homosexuals, to defend their freedoms, especially as the country adjusts to gay marriage.

Don't disagree and then spell out what I said.
Did Masterpiece Cakeshop prevent the couple from getting married?

quote:

The marriage took place in a different State. Which is why this is such a poor case to use as future precedent. Gay marriage had not been declared a legal right by the Court yet, and had Colorado not already given special protections based on sexual preference, there would be no case.
You say it's about a greater right, but I say it's about a greater need to protect an equal right. There is a difference.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And it is especially important for government to protect minorities from being persecuted and ostracized by those claiming religious beliefs that may directly oppose that minority's right to live, much less any equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
And there is growing support of that belief. Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Especially important? Um, no. It's important for government to protect the rights of all people. Period. Full stop. It's not "especially important" to protect minorities. That makes it more important to protect the rights of minorities over the rights of non-minorities. And, that, simply, is discriminatory. You can't see that what you're proposing is more discrimination?
Where, in the Constitution, does it say that people have a Constitutional right to buy a custom wedding cake at whatever bakery they so choose?

I'm not sure that the Constitution provides any protections for the rights of commerce. I don't think I've ever made such a claim. The question isn't about a specific item though, but about the Colorado law, and how it was applied in this case. Twenty two states have similar laws, so the matter does need to be addressed.
It may answer the question can a religious-based adoption agency deny gay couples, when they're not allowed to discriminate because of religion. If it doesn't, then that case will be coming in due time.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game?

There's a problem with this. The case isn't specific to only what happens or what is available in Lakewood, CO. If we are talking about what SCOTUS will decide for law for what applies on the Federal level, we must look at how it will apply anywhere in the country. That includes locations that don't have more than one bakery in any particular town. Places that don't have shops within a ten mile radius, that there aren't 'gay-owned' bakeries, and those locations where a person can serve or deny people based on their sexual orientation.
How far would you be willing to travel to be served the same product that would be sold to anybody else?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Somehow I managed to mangle the quotes up on that one... My b

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
You seem to assume I have no religious beliefs of my own. Or that I don't strive to be a good Christian. That would be false.
As a Christian myself, I find the religious beliefs argument in this case difficult to swallow and morally offensive. I've already quoted scripture as to why. But here it is again:
Matthew 22

quote:

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love thy neighbor. Not love thy neighbors except Gary, cuz he's a freak. Just love thy neighbor.

To be honest, I don't give a fuck what your beliefs are, or how you interpret Bible scriptures. Who gave you the right to define for someone else what their religious walk is? I suppose I could just walk up to my neighbor and start masturbating her, right? I mean, that's how I "love" myself....

And I don't give a fuck how bigots interpret the Bible or the Constitution. Examples like you've given here aren't worthy of comment.

You are disparaging the baker, along religious lines, because his self-defined walk is different from how you interpret Biblical passages and self-define your walk. You don't get to do that. That's part and parcel to religious freedom.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But just as we cannot allow Shari'a law to hijack our country, neither can we allow Christian beliefs to continue to deny basic civil rights to GLBTQ+ Americans.

Basic rights? Is there a "basic civil right" to have a particular cake shop decorate a wedding cake? How about not letting government encroach on someone's right to exercise his religion? Noooo, can't have that.

There are State rights, and Colorado chose to provide protections for LGBTQ+ against discrimination. I believe that law is fair and just because it is evenly applied to everyone in the State, regardless of their religious beliefs.
There are so many reasons for people of faith to disapprove even a heterosexual marriage, and they are allowed to do so. But has there ever been a reported instance of those disapprovals resulting in a denial of service? Not since Jim Crowe laws allowed blacks and interracial couples to be denied. And yes, some chose to use their religious beliefs as their reasoning at the time.

Outside of some arcane Mormon text (I'm assuming it's in the Book of Mormon), what religion denies people of color? Are there any verses in the Bible that oppose homosexuality?

https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042/

One Biblical story/passage (the "curse of Ham") mentioned with lots of quotes of one theologian. That's not exactly a slam dunk there.

quote:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystematictheology/2016/09/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-and-white-supremacy/

No scriptures mentioned or quoted.

quote:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31088/what-were-the-scriptural-arguments-used-for-modern-western-racism
Yes, there are quotes in the Bible that can be read to speak in favor of segregation and racial purity. I think the earliest of these is the Tower of Babel.

Finally! Some scripture quoted!! And, we get to the slam dunk God supports slavery.... oh, wait. That's not necessarily true. Yes, some people used these scriptures to defend their slave-holding, but if you read that page, you'd have seen that it was a misinterpretation, no?

How do you "misinterpret" Romans 1:24-30 as not being against homosexuality?

quote:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


Source: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-1-27/

Probably just a misinterpretation, right?

1st Corinthians 7 could be interpreted as being opposed to homosexual marriage, as it first starts out talking about a man only being with his wife, and she only being with him, and to be chaste if you're widowed or unmarried, but if you can't then to marry.

Leviticus 18:22 is pretty tough to think isn't in opposition of homosexuality. I mean, God told Moses to lay down the law, and part of that was "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)" That's pretty solid opposition there. Considering the use of "mankind" and "womankind," too, there are other scriptures that refer to mankind, that could, possibly have been interpreted not strictly as referring to males, but with Leviticus laying out that there's a difference between mankind and womankind....

1 Corinthians 6:9 : "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV)"

1 Timothy 1:10: "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind... (KJV)

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (KJV)

Another squirrely translation that could be twisted to oppose homosexuality? Not so much. Those are some specific statements there.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I am being quite real in my complaint. If a single business has a valid excuse for denying service to any class of people, then every business has that same right. Christianity is the most common religion in our country, so it would not be a surprise if a solid majority of bakeries would be Christian-owned, and also choose to deny service. And it could spread to every business related to weddings, effectively becoming a great pain in the ass for gay couples to do business at all.

Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game? Will government have the authority to force a kosher or halal eatery to serve pork products, or non-kosher/halal foods? I got it!! How about we should be allowed to get Big Macs at Burger King (ok that's a bad example, as there is that Big King sandwich, but they chose to do it, and weren't forced to (for the save!)).
Should any church of a homosexual couple be forced to perform their wedding ceremony?

Be forced to? No.

Why not? I mean, they're only not doing them due to religious beliefs....

Yes, and not every couple is automatically guaranteed approval for a church wedding in all churches.

I know, but why shouldn't government force all churches to perform same-sex weddings as they perform opposite-sex weddings?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I have no idea how many other bakeries are reasonably near Masterpiece that bake wedding cakes, nor the quality of any of them. But anywhere in America, competition could be right across the street, or 100 miles away.

So, you don't know? Considering it's less than 10 miles from Denver, I'm going to hazard a guess there are plenty (according to theknot.com, there are 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO). Masterpiece may be the very best. But, that doesn't mean they have to break their faith for a homosexual couple's custom wedding cake.
Since it's not letting me link, here's the link: https://www.theknot.com/marketplace/wedding-cake-bakeries-lakewood-co?distance=within-10-miles&offset=30
The Market will take care of these things, anyway. It likely won't be as quick as government fiat, but it would be organic and, imo, the right way to have it happen. No one is forced to purchase anything there. If you go to theknot and to the Masterpiece Cakeshop page, you'll see a couple bad reviews based on their unwillingness to make a cake for a homosexual family celebration, and they aren't the only 5-star rated bakery in the 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO.

It is wonderful to have options, and I'm sure the couple managed to find a cake in time. That does not negate the fact that the bakery violated Colorado's law.

The law could be an unConstitutional law, too. I'm sure the couple got a cake for their wedding. And, I bet they were damn happy with the cake they got (that is, they loved their wedding cake).

quote:

quote:

In your opinion, homosexuals have a greater right to purchase a custom-created wedding cake from whomever they choose than a cake decorator's right to worship and exercise his religion as he sees fit. Get real.

No. In my opinion, homosexuals have been denied equal rights and opportunities for far too long, in many ways because of religious beliefs. To make certain that cannot continue, some protections must be provided for homosexuals, to defend their freedoms, especially as the country adjusts to gay marriage.

Don't disagree and then spell out what I said.
Did Masterpiece Cakeshop prevent the couple from getting married?

quote:

The marriage took place in a different State. Which is why this is such a poor case to use as future precedent. Gay marriage had not been declared a legal right by the Court yet, and had Colorado not already given special protections based on sexual preference, there would be no case.
You say it's about a greater right, but I say it's about a greater need to protect an equal right. There is a difference.

I disagree it's an equal right. Holy shit. That's absurd. Your right to force someone to custom create something their religion opposes is greater than their right to religious freedom?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!?

quote:

quote:

quote:

And it is especially important for government to protect minorities from being persecuted and ostracized by those claiming religious beliefs that may directly oppose that minority's right to live, much less any equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
And there is growing support of that belief. Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Especially important? Um, no. It's important for government to protect the rights of all people. Period. Full stop. It's not "especially important" to protect minorities. That makes it more important to protect the rights of minorities over the rights of non-minorities. And, that, simply, is discriminatory. You can't see that what you're proposing is more discrimination?
Where, in the Constitution, does it say that people have a Constitutional right to buy a custom wedding cake at whatever bakery they so choose?

I'm not sure that the Constitution provides any protections for the rights of commerce. I don't think I've ever made such a claim. The question isn't about a specific item though, but about the Colorado law, and how it was applied in this case. Twenty two states have similar laws, so the matter does need to be addressed.
It may answer the question can a religious-based adoption agency deny gay couples, when they're not allowed to discriminate because of religion. If it doesn't, then that case will be coming in due time.

So, the Constitution doesn't mention any protections for the rights of commerce, but does mention the right to religious freedom, but you still think the right to buy something from a vendor who doesn't want to sell you something trumps that vendor's right to freely exercise his/her religion?

quote:


"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Market will take care of it. If there is a demand for a bakery to custom create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then there is a spot for an entrepreneur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Another question I think we should be asking ourselves would be, is Mr Phillips exercising his religion OR is he attempting, through his business, to impose his religion on other people?
[/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Instead of hijacking the Michael Flynn thread, I'm going to carry this part of the conversation here, to a new space.

My hope is that topics can be brought up without our prospective talking points, and without personal or party-based attacks, in order for more of us to not only understand facts of whatever issue is currently at play, because there are so many, but also to understand the other side's views when presented rationally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

In one way or another, our country needs to heal. We absolutely must find common ground, even on the most controversial issues, and make progress towards resolving them.

When a multi-felon illegal alien can shoot a woman, and it's considered a "win" for the left to get him acquitted of any serious charges... When the "news" is demonstrably mostly propaganda, and the left LIKES it that way... When it is practically a crime in and of itself to be a straight white male... Etc... I can safely say, we won't be finding any common ground any time soon

Accusations like this don't really help matters, and we're seeing them on every front from both sides. This is exactly why I say that it seems that there are far too many that seek to cause even more strife among us.

Bosco, you're perhaps one of the most ironwilled right wing posters around. When you can avoid making the knee-jerk hateful response, and present a clear headed post free of talking points, you're also one of the most well-spoken. I hope that you can do that in this thread, so that an open, respectful dialogue can happen.

It is never a "win" when an innocent bystander loses their life. And there can never be justice for that, only state retribution. Every time something horrible happens, we have to look at the reality of the situation and determine the course of action to best prevent similar events in the future. There is rarely a one-line solution, rarely a one-party solution, and not all solutions have to start with the government.

It is a win when every person in this country is given adequate representation in a criminal proceeding. I don't believe that this murderer (let's call it like it is) had a right to be in our country at all, and I am honestly uncertain that any of the protections of the Constitution should apply to him. I'll look at case law in a bit to find out where that comes from. I'm also curious about the defense attorney(s); whether it was a public defender or a private attorney trying to make a name for himself or herself.

It is horrible when the prosecutors tasked with seeking convictions for any crime fail to do that job, especially when lives have been lost. Sadly, that job was likely made more difficult by presidential candidates politicizing the case, by influencing the jury pool. But can the prosecution team themselves look at this case with their only regret being the lack of a conviction for wrongful death? Was the case given a strong enough attorney? Enough time and attention by the DA's office? Can the judge be shown as unfavorable and biased against the prosecution at all, or have a proven record of being biased? Is the DA's office properly funded, properly staffed, and fully capable of handling the job? Was there enough evidence to support a murder conviction before that charge was brought before the court?

I agree with your quotations regarding "news". Our news is being delivered by media conglomerates, and stories are selected and presented for each newscast to get ratings. This means that far too much is sensationalized, while important events are barely given any air time at all. And we are now finding out just who some of the people are that we have trusted to bring us our news and entertainment on a daily basis. This makes it that much more important that we as Americans become more varied about where we get our information from, to see the bigger picture. As you pointed out with ABC in another thread, networks and publications alike are usually slow about issuing a retraction or correction to a story they got wrong in some way. When it does happen, it's often hidden and not given as much attention as the original story did. A public backlash is the only answer for that, to make these news organizations hold themselves to higher standards in journalism. But it cannot be fixed by politicians posting inaccurate tweets or spreading misinformation in any way. I do believe that we should hold our politicians to the same, if not a higher standard of accuracy when speaking about current events. And perhaps they should all only speak about topics and events they have enough information about in the first place. It would be a quieter world. There is also no solution to be found in state-run media either; even CSPAN is edited.

I don't believe that being a straight white male is remotely illegal in this country.

Homosexuality was criminalized in much of the country for many decades. Gays have been marginalized, punished, and denied equal rights as promised by our Constitution. And what recent changes in our laws mean is certainly a matter that needs to be discussed openly.

The race and gender cards are useless to play in your intended manner, but I do understand why so many believe this.

Once upon a time, an honest, working, white man could provide for his family on a single income. That's the life presented to all of us through decades of tv shows at least. I make no claim to be an expert on the reality of that. Women were presented as secretaries, nurses, lunch ladies, teachers, housekeepers, etc. A white man rarely had to compete with a qualified woman for the same job, much less anyone of color. Colored folks weren't welcome in certain neighborhoods, couldn't eat at the same places, and in no way were treated equally under the law. None of that can be true anymore, and there is certainly going to be some adjusting necessary.

I'm tired of hearing about so and so is the first black man to do something, or the first woman to do something, or the first bisexual, transgendered, Asian/Latino mixed race them to do something. It's 2017, why are there any more damn firsts left? Because so much has been off limits to these peoples for so long.

Every single one of those firsts have taken a job that a white man would have had, without question, in an earlier time; and that hurts, if not personally, then certainly financially. "They're" taking what's "ours" is how so many see it. And we have to work with, and often, FOR THEM, for our own financial survival. Our kids have to go to school with them. They're moving into our neighborhoods. Why can't they stay where they "belong"? Why does equal for them mean "less for us"? Why isn't one income enough anymore? How are we, as men, supposed to provide for our families anymore?

Yeah, I understand the angst is very real. The divide is very real.

And yes, there are bigots, but not everything that involves race or pride in a person's heritage is about racism. Not every issue touching upon gender is sexist. Not every conversation about LGBTQ+OMGBBQWTF's is hate speech. Not every discussion about religion freedoms and what we don't like about other religions, or people of other religions has to be discriminatory. Not every response to the latest shooting tragedy is about taking our guns.

More and more, it all boils down to "what about me and mine?". And until we can answer that, everything else is moot.