Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christian Baker In Trouble Again!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    But that is not the case. He was willing to serve them anything else in the establishment, and the item they wanted was something he would refuse to serve to anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. There is therefore no discrimination against customer by their orientation, simply a desire to not make a particular kind of product irrespective of the customer requesting it.

    He was being ordered to make a cake that conveyed a message. Compelled speech is an inherent violation of freedom of speech.
    I disagree. The baker was being hired to make a wedding cake, the same as he did for every other couple. The reason for his refusal to do so in this case was because the couple was gay. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation which according to Colorado law is illegal. Btw, the message is not the bakers message, for him it is not speech at all, it is the message of the customers. As far as being compelled, we have laws with respect to commerce which apply to every business and every businessman.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I disagree. The baker was being hired to make a wedding cake, the same as he did for every other couple. The reason for his refusal to do so in this case was because the couple was gay. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation which according to Colorado law is illegal. Btw, the message is not the bakers message, for him it is not speech at all, it is the message of the customers. As far as being compelled, we have laws with respect to commerce which apply to every business and every businessman.
      Same old falsehood that laws trump rights. Whats that matter, Your lying leftist handlers haven't given you a new talking point to assert? The truth is that in America we do not have to follow unconstitutional laws. something you would know if you hadn't slept through Civics.

      I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions in post #68
      1st. What right of the gay couple listed in the bill of rights did that baker infringe upon?
      2nd Is it discriminatory not to bake a celebratory cake for a divorced person or someone who wants to celebrate Halloween based on your religious belief? For that matter is it discriminatory not to bake a cake with a message denigrating folks due to there race, sexual orientation, gender etc.. also based on your religious belief?

      and to this issue about who is forcing their belief on whom

      Why did the gay couple insist on that baker when he said no? Why did they not choose to go another baker who would do it? That is what a normal person would have done if the marriage and celebration of their marriage was paramount in their minds. so tell me JimL what other reason then forcing their belief on to others could there be? tell me JimL.
      Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-01-2019, 12:50 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I disagree. The baker was being hired to make a wedding cake, the same as he did for every other couple.
        No, he was being hired to make a particular kind of wedding cake, not just a generic, one-size-fits-all cake. As soon as you go into any level of customization for a cake (or any product) it can no longer be said that the discrimination is based on the customer rather than the product. If he had an already-made wedding cake available in the store and refused to sell it, then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

        Btw, the message is not the bakers message, for him it is not speech at all, it is the message of the customers.
        If you are distributing a message, even if it's someone else's, you are in fact engaging in speech. In fact, this is more than distributing, as he's the one actually making the product.

        As far as being compelled, we have laws with respect to commerce which apply to every business and every businessman.
        The only kind of "compelled speech" I can think of in regards to this sort of thing are cases where some extra speech is required, like requiring commercials put up disclaimers as to possible side effects of medication. In other words, that's saying "if you're going to say this, then you have to also say this." This situation, however, is not even based on that, it's simply a case of "say this."

        At any rate, my point was that the freedom of speech argument was a stronger one than freedom of religion. I still think that's unnecessary to arrive at because I don't think the law applies to begin with.

        Comment


        • #79
          The obvious hostility of the state board may have muddied the waters of freedom of religion and of speech. Because their enmity towards this baker was so blatant even the Supreme Court had to kick it back rather than try to rule whether there was an outright violation of protected freedom?
          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
            The obvious hostility of the state board may have muddied the waters of freedom of religion and of speech. Because their enmity towards this baker was so blatant even the Supreme Court had to kick it back rather than try to rule whether there was an outright violation of protected freedom?
            yep.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
              No, he was being hired to make a particular kind of wedding cake, not just a generic, one-size-fits-all cake. As soon as you go into any level of customization for a cake (or any product) it can no longer be said that the discrimination is based on the customer rather than the product. If he had an already-made wedding cake available in the store and refused to sell it, then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.
              The kind of cake that he was hired and refused to make points to his discrimination against the couple that hired him. If he makes wedding cakes, then he makes wedding cakes for all who hire him to do so, otherwise he is discriminating against those to whom he refuses. All of his customers hire him to make a particular kind of cake, a wedding cake, made according to their specifications. If he was a christian only bakery, like a christian book shop or gift shop, then that would be one thing, but he wasn't. And again, speech and acts are two different things, the baker is free to speak, no one impeded his speech. He was free to say that he doesn't believe in gay marriage, or interacial marriage, but being against gay marriage doesn't mean you can refuse to serve them any more than he could refuse to serve an interacial couple because he didn't believe in interacial marriage.
              If you are distributing a message, even if it's someone else's, you are in fact engaging in speech. In fact, this is more than distributing, as he's the one actually making the product.
              No, no you are not, speech is speech, you are free to believe and to say whatever you like, but you can't necessarily act, or in this case, refuse to act based on those beliefs.
              The only kind of "compelled speech" I can think of in regards to this sort of thing are cases where some extra speech is required, like requiring commercials put up disclaimers as to possible side effects of medication. In other words, that's saying "if you're going to say this, then you have to also say this." This situation, however, is not even based on that, it's simply a case of "say this."
              Even if you argue that the message of the cake is a matter of free speech, (i disagree, it isn't speech) the speech in question would be that of the customers, not of the baker.
              At any rate, my point was that the freedom of speech argument was a stronger one than freedom of religion. I still think that's unnecessary to arrive at because I don't think the law applies to begin with.
              But again, nobodys right to free speech was violated. The baker was free to say whatever he liked. I understand you disagree with that, so we, i believe, will have to agree to disagree. I do believe though, that had the majority right S.C. ruled on the actual case itself, rather than kicking the can down the road and ruling only on the actions of the Colorado civil rights board, the baker would have lost his case. I guess we will have to wait until the next similar, inevitable, case of discrimination is brought to suit.
              Last edited by JimL; 01-01-2019, 06:03 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                The bible doesn't have to say it is about Jews/christians, thats what the entire world view of the scripture is. It is not speaking to "so called heretics.
                Jim, the bible acknowledges marriages that are not between Christians and specifically says that if a Christian is married to a non-Christian they should remain married, for example. So there is nothing in the bible that says only Christian marriages are valid. Otherwise when unbelievers became Christians they would have to get divorce if their spouse was not Christian, or get remarried as Christians.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Jim, the bible acknowledges marriages that are not between Christians and specifically says that if a Christian is married to a non-Christian they should remain married, for example. So there is nothing in the bible that says only Christian marriages are valid. Otherwise when unbelievers became Christians they would have to get divorce if their spouse was not Christian, or get remarried as Christians.
                  Oh, the bible actually preaches both perspectives, contradicts itself as usual. Most christians nowadays don't really seem to give a hoot what the bible actually says anyway. But that's besides the point anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter what the baker believes, he is free to believe what he wants, but as a businessman he can not discriminate against others based on his personal beliefs. In doing so he violated Colorado civil rights law, and the majority right Supreme Court was, I'm sure, well aware of that, which is why they didn't rule on the suit specifically and instead focused on the Colorado civl rights commission.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Oh, the bible actually preaches both perspectives, contradicts itself as usual. Most christians nowadays don't really seem to give a hoot what the bible actually says anyway. But that's besides the point anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter what the baker believes, he is free to believe what he wants, but as a businessman he can not discriminate against others based on his personal beliefs. In doing so he violated Colorado civil rights law, and the majority right Supreme Court was, I'm sure, well aware of that, which is why they didn't rule on the suit specifically and instead focused on the Colorado civl rights commission.
                    Jews frequently did not give a hoot about the Law and the prophets and suffered the consequences. First generation Christians did the same. And Revelation warns that disobedience will happen time and again and there would be consequences- for the final time. The baker chose to take the Christian principles seriously (in other words, he sincerely believed in obeying the Bible). He believed homosexuality was as displeasing to God as celebrating Halloween or doing hate messages. He has the Bible to back him up.

                    So what if others calling themselves Christians don't do the same? Didn't Jesus say that not all who say Lord, Lord, would be acknowledged by him precisely because their conduct did not honor him after all?
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Oh, the bible actually preaches both perspectives, contradicts itself as usual.
                      OK so show me where it contradicts itself on this matter. Should be simple for a biblical scholar such as yourself.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        OK so show me where it contradicts itself on this matter. Should be simple for a biblical scholar such as yourself.
                        Easy for a bible scholar like me. 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Easy for a bible scholar like me. 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
                          Where does it say anything about non-christian marriages being invalid or sinful?

                          In fact where does that verse mention marriage at all?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Where does it say anything about non-christian marriages being invalid or sinful?

                            In fact where does that verse mention marriage at all?
                            It doesn't. It is not unreasonable, however, to apply the verse to prospective marriage IMO, and argue that a believer should not enter into marriage with an unbeliever.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Where does it say anything about non-christian marriages being invalid or sinful?

                              In fact where does that verse mention marriage at all?


                              I always understood that verse to apply to business dealings.

                              Which would make it fit perfectly well as an argument against a baker making a cake for same-sex marriage.



                              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                It doesn't. It is not unreasonable, however, to apply the verse to prospective marriage IMO, and argue that a believer should not enter into marriage with an unbeliever.
                                True. It would be good marriage advice to have a harmonious marriage. But it doesn't say you can't marry an unbeliever or that unbeliever's marriages are not valid or any of the crap JimL tried to claim.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                299 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X