SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Tassman]

Very much a 'dodge'/'evade' sort of answer. People can and do distort the writings of the Bible (or any other respected text) in an attempt to justify their own wants or goals. That does not mean the written text actually implies the distorted conclusion.

You think it a distortion of scripture, the anti-miscegenation supporters did not...for centuries.

No - they can't. This is, again, simply a disingenuous and intellectually empty dismissal of the Bible base on your own prejudice against it.

Yes they can make the bible say whatever they want and they do. See above.

You can't get out of the real conflict this way. Simply putting quotes around one instance of the word freedom and not around the other! Really? The freedom to the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. The conflict that arises here is real and you need to step up to the plate and acknowledge it ... unless you prefer deceptive and disingenuous arguments and debates.

The only conflict is with Christians, who think their beliefs are entitled to special treatment. They are not.

Simply not true. For a person to be forced to violate the moral principles of their religion is to deny them the right to the free exercise of their religion - which I repeat is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The exercise of one’s moral principles does not allow for discrimination against others engaging in a lawful act.

It you say it a million times it will not make it correct.

But it is correct. The Civil Rights Act does not take away the baker’s right to freely practice his religion, it merely takes away his perceived right to discriminate against those he disapproves of.

Specifically, you want to force a man to design and create a symbol of a marriage which sanctions same-sex actions which according to a straight-forward reading of both Old and New testament texts are forbidden.

Nobody is forcing Evangelicals into doing anything other than obeying the law that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. As for NT and OT interpretations of scripture the majority of Christians and Jews believe homosexual marriage is in keeping with biblical principles.

He refuses to make any cake that violates the moral convictions his religious faith requires. And he serves any customer any product that does not violate those religious convictions. Clearly the issue here is religious conviction, not discrimination - except for those that would like to control his religion and its expression.

No, the issue here is discrimination in the name of religious beliefs. And, discrimination is not permitted under the Civil Rights Act.

And in this case that protection is being made to directly conflict with the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment! You don't get to pick and chose which amendments you follow and which ones you can ignore.

No it's compatible with the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment upon which the Civil Rights Act is based.

You are using arguments to dismiss the harm to the baker caused by your position that were used by the guards in the Nazi interment camps to justify their actions.

Nonsense! As a general rule, the government protects the rights of religious people and institutions to practice their faiths openly and freely without governmental interference unless the practice harms others or undermines other compelling societal interests...in this instance the civil right of homosexuals to marry according to law.

To say Adultery is wrong is not bigotry. To say same-sex acts are wrong is not bigotry. To refuse to participate in a ceremony that justifies actions you believe are wrong are not bigotry.

It’s actually none of your business, provided that homosexuals and adulterers behave within the law. You are entitled to proclaim that it’s wrong if it makes you feel good...as per Westboro Baptist Church, but you cannot deny service in a Public Accommodation such as a cake shop.

What is bigotry is to despise another person simply because their religious faith causes them to have different moral standards from your own.

The only "despising" being done is by Christian bakers in the name of Jesus.

No answer for the argument I see ...

Nothing personal oxmixmudd but you waffle too much, as I’ve told you before.

[oxmixmudd]

Nobody is forcing Evangelicals into doing anything other than obeying the law that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. As for NT and OT interpretations of scripture the majority of Christians and Jews believe homosexual marriage is in keeping with biblical principles.

The marjority? That is absurd. The largest single Christian body - the RCC - while there is debate at the current time does not sanction same-sex marriage.

https://www.catholicaction.org/same_sex_marriage

This is also the position of a large number of protestant denominations.


Jim

[Tassman]

The marjority? That is absurd. The largest single Christian body - the RCC - while there is debate at the current time does not sanction same-sex marriage.

https://www.catholicaction.org/same_sex_marriage

This is also the position of a large number of protestant denominations.

This may be the official position of some Churches but is not the position of most lay Christians.

"Among people who are religiously unaffiliated, a solid majority have supported same-sex marriage since 2001. Today, 85% of religious “nones” say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Two-thirds of Catholics now support same-sex marriage, as do a similar share of white mainline Protestants (68%).

Support for same-sex marriage among black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants remains lower than it is among other religious groups. However, the share of white evangelical Protestants who support same-sex marriage has grown from 27% in 2016 to 35% today."

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/c...-gay-marriage/

[Sparko]

Not according to Rep. Atty Gen. Jeff Sessions, according to him, and apparently your Bible, governments are ordained by God for his purposes. But of course Sessions is an idiot, and governments are often wrong, case in point the anti-christian Trump/republican agenda in general.

So then your earlier statement is full of crap.

the government has a right to regulate your business. That's what government does, it makes laws that apply equally to all members of society for the betterment of society.

[oxmixmudd]

This may be the official position of some Churches but is not the position of most lay Christians.

"Among people who are religiously unaffiliated, a solid majority have supported same-sex marriage since 2001. Today, 85% of religious “nones” say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Two-thirds of Catholics now support same-sex marriage, as do a similar share of white mainline Protestants (68%).

Support for same-sex marriage among black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants remains lower than it is among other religious groups. However, the share of white evangelical Protestants who support same-sex marriage has grown from 27% in 2016 to 35% today."

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/c...-gay-marriage/

What the popular support is doesn't matter in terms of what the official doctrine of the religion is, and especially in terms of what constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

I see the SCOTUS pushed another one of these cases along today. I believe it is because they recognize the potential conflict between the basic tenets of the constitution that you would prefer to believe do not exist. I tend to think there may well be no solution to the issue that actually is consistent with the entirety of the constitution. And the reason in part has a lot to do with how you are approaching the problem. You refuse to acknowledge the critical difference between an inherited disposition and a chosen action. Indeed, the reason i've abandoned discussion of all but the most basic elements of this topic with you is that you will not acknowledge the obvious in that regard. The result being the discussion devolved into you playing the role of a parrot mindlessly repeating talking points without any discussion of the points I've raised on the difference between actions and dispositions.

Jim

[JimL]

The CRA doesn't guarantee that - equal ACCESS, not equal TREATMENT. Equal treatment would mean giving all couples the exact same cake despite their wishes. Everybody gets a happy birthday with blue roses and likes it - no matter what they actually wanted.

I think that's a nonsensical argument Tea, a loophole you might say. Sometimes we have to use common sense, everything isn't spelled out for us in law, that's why we have the courts.

[JimL]

Then you are of the opinion that Colorado's commission ERRED when it allowed gay bakers to refuse service to gay marriage opponents, and other bakers to refuse service for messages they deemed inappropriate (racist) - right? The former fits your definition here perfectly - the latter fits the CRA.

No I don't agree, I think that's ridiculous. Opposing gay marriage does not define a person, so the gay baker would not be discriminating against the person, he would be refusing to engage in that persons hate speech against gay persons.

[JimL]

Jim, no I'm not - this is exactly why the Court ruled AGAINST Colorado - they were unfairly allowing gays to discriminate but not Christians (we're using your terminology here). And whether or not it makes sense, they had been ordered, service was refused, it was brought before the commission and the discrimination was allowed.

As far as I recall the SC ruled that Colorado acted with bias in its ruling against the baker, they never really ruled on the case itself. So, I don't know where you are getting the idea that Colorado was allowing gay bakers to discriminate, or that that had anything to do with the SC ruling.

[JimL]

So then your earlier statement is full of crap.

No, and how you come to the conclusions you do is beyond me.

[oxmixmudd]

What the popular support is doesn't matter in terms of what the official doctrine of the religion is, and especially in terms of what constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

I see the SCOTUS pushed another one of these cases along today. I believe it is because they recognize the potential conflict between the basic tenets of the constitution that you would prefer to believe do not exist. I tend to think there may well be no solution to the issue that actually is consistent with the entirety of the constitution. And the reason in part has a lot to do with how you are approaching the problem. You refuse to acknowledge the critical difference between an inherited disposition and a chosen action. Indeed, the reason i've abandoned discussion of all but the most basic elements of this topic with you is that you will not acknowledge the obvious in that regard. The result being the discussion devolved into you playing the role of a parrot mindlessly repeating talking points without any discussion of the points I've raised on the difference between actions and dispositions.

Jim

From a ruling today on free speach and religious freedom:

"Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties,"

This applies directly to this case because the specialty cake service prvoided is all about creating a cake that captures the unique and special relationship of the marrying couple, expressing a unique and supportive message about and connected directly to the event.

But the message is in fact in direct opposition to the religious views of the baker, thus he has no obligation to convey that message or create anything which conveys such a message.

Jim

[Tassman]

From a ruling today on free speach and religious freedom:

"Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties,"

This applies directly to this case because the specialty cake service prvoided is all about creating a cake that captures the unique and special relationship of the marrying couple, expressing a unique and supportive message about and connected directly to the event.

But the message is in fact in direct opposition to the religious views of the baker, thus he has no obligation to convey that message or create anything which conveys such a message.

You haven’t specified or linked to what you are talking about. If you’re referring to the SCOTUS ruling early this month in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, it doesn’t address the principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people in general, it’s a ‘one off’. The decision focused narrowly on the handling of this one case, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases.

[seer]

You haven’t specified or linked to what you are talking about. If you’re referring to the SCOTUS ruling early this month in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, it doesn’t address the principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people in general, it’s a ‘one off’. The decision focused narrowly on the handling of this one case, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases.

I think Jim is referencing the other Court case from Monday, and that plays into the whole free speech thing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ating-Leftists

[oxmixmudd]

I think Jim is referencing the other Court case from Monday, and that plays into the whole free speech thing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ating-Leftists

Correct.

Jim

[RumTumTugger]

No, and how you come to the conclusions you do is beyond me.

You are right that it is beyond you. It is called thinking for yourself and checking the facts something you refuse to do.

[Tassman]

Correct.

Baking a cake is not conveying any message at all. It’s just doing what bakers do, i.e. bake cakes. And, as for the violation of constitutional protections at Californian crisis pregnancy centres what about the constitutional protection of women legally wanting abortions?