Page 57 of 60 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 600

Thread: SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

  1. #561
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    38,204
    Amen (Given)
    3511
    Amen (Received)
    18139
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And you think my arguments have been about legality and not morality?
    It should be since you have no leg to stand on to tell anyone else what the right morality is here.


    Actually - the legal question is not decided at this point. SCOTUS took a position on the basis of the obvious discrimination the Colorado Civil Rights group was itself showing, and sidestepped the issue of the baker. My position has been about the moral position (which I thought you were responding to, since you several times referred to my "relative morality,"). I also injected "(and eventually, hopefully, legally)" in several posts.
    You keep saying this but that is an over simplification of what the decision is, as I have quoted to you earlier. It also addresses that he was within his first amendment rights to refuse to make the cake. And that it was art.

    As for the genetics theory, I am absolute open to the possibility that I am wrong - as soon as someone makes a rational argument refuting the one I have put forward.
    Except you can't even seem to consider any other view because you do your damnedest to flip everything back to genetics no matter what anyone says.

    So far, mostly, the responses have been assertions and attempts at insulting me. I don't know how long it will take for people to realize that there is really no insult anyone can toss at me that is going to raise my blood pressure one iota. I am interested in the arguments. As Jesus once said (and I paraphrase), "nothing a man puts into his mouth can defile him - only what comes out of his mouth." Likewise, insults reflect on the insulter - not the insulted. So focusing on the argument at hand would be far more productive.
    That isn't true. We have all been very patient with you and described in excruciating detail what our view is and why. At which point you play games, handwave it all away, and repeat yourself.

    So much for 'the last word' again too huh?

  2. Amen RumTumTugger, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  3. #562
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,173
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    It should be since you have no leg to stand on to tell anyone else what the right morality is here.

    You keep saying this but that is an over simplification of what the decision is, as I have quoted to you earlier. It also addresses that he was within his first amendment rights to refuse to make the cake. And that it was art.

    Except you can't even seem to consider any other view because you do your damnedest to flip everything back to genetics no matter what anyone says.
    Since no one has successfully (IMO) refuted the genetics argument...of course I return to it. It is the heart of my argument and the heart of the inconsistency made by those advocating for the baker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    That isn't true. We have all been very patient with you and described in excruciating detail what our view is and why. At which point you play games, handwave it all away, and repeat yourself.
    What you consider "handwaving" I consider pointing out that the responses have not addressed the core argument. Indeed, I have noticed that the weaker the response, the more I get accused of "didging" and "handwaving" and "dancing" and all the rest.

    And the claim that it is "not true" is simply false. Simply go back and see all of the places where the responses have not been about the argument - but have been about me as a person. As I said, I take no offense. My focus is the arguments. I just find such responses a waste of everyone's time, and a poor reflection on the responder. If you can't keep it about the argument - perhaps it's because you don't have one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So much for 'the last word' again too huh?
    Yeah...I meant to focus on the SCOTUS argument, and we segued back to the gay baker issue. I'll have to add this to my list of "not successful."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  4. #563
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,940
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No one argues otherwise, Jim. Indeed - that has been noted, though your use of "natural" is problematic, IMO. And the same is true of infertile couples.



    They are equivalent in terms of sex if you hold the sex of the participants constant. They are different in other ways. You appear to want to reduce everything to sex and deny that there are other substantive differences in marriages (age, race, ethnicity, culture, etc.). In so doing, you are being somewhat arbitrary. You are also arbitrarily deciding that children is a MAJOR component and all of the other are MINOR differences.

    I'm curious - have you ever been married?



    You can make the claim - but you cannot substantiate it. Indeed, I find this kind of "what if" speculation largely pointless , so I'll leave it to you.



    We've already noted, several times, that same sex marriages are not the same as opposite sex marriages. However, "not equivalent" suggests a comparison of "better" or "worse." If that is your intent, you have not made that case. If "not equivalent" merely means "has differences," that has been stipulated to.



    Actually, I have noted they are different. No problem.



    No. And by now I'm assuming you actually are not married. I can tell you that many (most?) people marry for love of one another, and considerations of children come later, if they come at all. You have a view of marriage that does not seem to align to reality. However, I agree it is about both. Indeed, love/relationship clearly has primacy. You need only run a simple thought experiment to see this:

    • Couple A and Couple B meet, decide they would be good genetic matches, and agree to marry to breed children.
    • Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and decide to marry and be together for life, and mutually decide they do not want children.
    • Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and decide to marry and be together for life. They later decide to have children.
    • Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and both want to have children, so they decide to marry and be together for life.


    I think most people would look at this list and see the potential for a healthy marriage relationship in all but the first one. Note that children are part of 1, 3, and 4; and love is part of 2, 3, and 4. Most people would see a marriage without children as "perfectly natural," but a marriage without love and relationship? Love is clearly a stronger gating criteria than children, which is an optional criteria for a marriage.



    Ahh..so THAT's where you're going. I have already addressed this, Jim. There is no bigotry/prejudice in recognizing differences, or in honoring them in our choices. There is when the treatment of others is not related to the difference. MM, FF. MF marriages are different in many ways - most of which trace back to the sex of the participants. Because there is no basis for discriminating between individuals on the basis of sex - this discrimination is immoral. If you decide not to give an MM couple lacy negligees for their wedding gift - there is no inappropriate discrimination going on. If you decide not to make a wedding cake for an MM couple that you would make for an MF couple - you are in the world of bigotry and prejudice. There simply is no way around it.



    True - and not applicable to this context. We have already seen that the idea of children CAN be removed from marriage without substantively changing the definition of marriage.



    No. This is a specious distinction. An infertile couple (e.g., a woman with a hysterectomy, a woman of 70 years, a male who has had his testicles removed due to cancer, etc.), have ZERO potential for begetting children.



    Correct.



    It may not be one you approve of or like, Jim, but it is indeed a sexual union. It is NOT a sexual union that will produce an offspring, but then neither is the sexual union between an infertile man and/or an infertile woman.



    Consummation of marriage merely means sexual intercourse has occurred. Because something has been a certain way does not establish that this is the only way it can be, or even should be.



    You are pretty heavy into showing that same-sex couples cannot have biological children. I have stipulated to that multiple times now. I have agreed that MM, FF, and MF marriages are different (and shown other combinations that are likewise different). If all you wanted was for me to acknowledge the sexual differences and the impact on marriage, that seems to be accomplished.

    MM, FF, and FM marriages have differences. Agreed. No problem. In MM and FF marriages, at least one of the couple will not be the biological parent of any children. Also agreed. No problem.

    If that was the point you were making - I think we're in agreement and we appear to be done. If you are planning to take this observation and draw another conclusion from it, you might want to get to that part.
    That would be the point. You implied they were the same and I meant to show they are not.

    Jim
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  5. #564
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,173
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    That would be the point. You implied they were the same and I meant to show they are not.

    Jim
    Then let me be clear: for the purposes of determining whether or not to bake a wedding cake - they are the same. For the purposes of booking a wedding hall, they are the same. For the purposes of buying wedding gifts, they are (at least partially) different. For the purposes of determining how children will become part of the family, each marriage (MM, FF, MF) has access to a differing set of procreation/family options. MF has the widest selection, FF has the same selection set minus one (coitus within the marriage). MM has the narrowest set of options. None of these differences are relevant to "should we bake a cake for them."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  6. #565
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    36,658
    Amen (Given)
    856
    Amen (Received)
    14745
    One would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.

    I'm always still in trouble again

  7. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #566
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,628
    Amen (Given)
    1027
    Amen (Received)
    3983
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    One would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.
    But that is not the aim of these encounters - they are meant to legally harm anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
    God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform; He plants his footsteps in the sea, And rides upon the storm. You fearful saints fresh courage take, The clouds you so much dread are great with mercy, and shall break In blessings on your head. Judge not the Lord by your feeble sense, But trust him for his grace; Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face. William Cowper

  9. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #567
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,855
    Amen (Given)
    1028
    Amen (Received)
    1131
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    One would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.
    But that wouldn't be equal treatement now, would it?

  11. #568
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,855
    Amen (Given)
    1028
    Amen (Received)
    1131
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    But that is not the aim of these encounters - they are meant to legally harm anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
    No, they are meant to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, the same as they can't be discriminated against for any other reason related to their personal identity.

  12. #569
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,173
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    One would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.
    I have not seen anything in any of the reporting that suggests they were unwilling to. The reports I have read indicate the baker would not sell any wedding cake to them if it was to be used for a wedding in which two people of the same sex were marrying. I know other things have been reported in this discussion, but after the ruling I dug around and could not find any of that affirmed.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  13. #570
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,940
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Then let me be clear: for the purposes of determining whether or not to bake a wedding cake - they are the same.
    This baker isn't simply a baker. The requested service isn't just mixing flour and eggs and sugar in the correct proportions. The service requested was a specialized cake where the baker invents an artistic presentation where the unique and special attributes of the couples relationship are recreated in artwork on the cake. Something which for a same-sex relationship and marriage simply is not possible to do for this baker. One can't demand that an artist create from a dry well or operate in complete violation of his principles and morals. This situation is a complete and total violation of his conscience and being. He simply is not capable of offering them the service they desire any more than the couple is capable of suddenly deciding they are no longer same-sex attracted. He could give them a 'cake'. But he could not create what they would be paying for.

    For the purposes of booking a wedding hall, they are the same. For the purposes of buying wedding gifts, they are (at least partially) different. For the purposes of determining how children will become part of the family, [each marriage (MM, FF, MF) has access to a differing set of procreation/family options. MF has the widest selection, FF has the same selection set minus one (coitus within the marriage). MM has the narrowest set of options. None of these differences are relevant to "should we bake a cake for them."
    Well, to the technical first. The MM/FF has no natural procreation options. They can adopt a child that has another father and another mother, or in the case of FF, one of the 'mothers' can get herself artificially impregnated with sperm from a MAN and make a baby. Either way, procreation only happens with a man and a women making a baby. There are NO same-sex procreation options.

    But to the point of showing the differences. These are cakes with two different purposes. One contains symbology that supports a heterosexual marriage, the other symbology that supports a same-sex marriage. And as we've already agreed. A same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage are not the same thing, and the cakes made are in fact also not the same thing. One violates the religious convictions of the baker. The other does not.

    This is independent of any characteristic of the patrons requesting the cakes.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-14-2018 at 04:11 AM.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  14. Amen Teallaura, Pluto amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •