That is exactly how I think the issues should be handled in the information age.
Not with legislation and lawsuits.
Tom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can the government make me decorate a cake?
- Thread starter chickenranch
- Start date
Not with legislation and lawsuits.
Tom
Stanyon
WWMRD?
I wondered that too, and it would make sense that they went around trying to find someone that wouldn't for the specific purpose of raising the issue and play the martyrs to knee jerk social justice types, they don't seem to understand social justice is one thing but crying and whining about every little thing however ridiculous is exactly what caused the backlash against them. As far as the abusive phone calls, that seems an offshoot of the cultural marxism that has been growing over the years.
I think you are overestimating the scope and power of what you call public opinion, it seems an overly broad and encompassing claim as if it applies to everyone and we all know that mob justice is always right. Now a question:
Do support harassment and or violence/vandalism, etc. against people and or businesses who do not follow your world view?
No, I haven't missed any point by asking this question: Why are homophobes so happy to illegally discriminate against honest, hardworking, upstanding gay people but have no objection whatsoever to providing their goods and services to rapists, thieves, perpetrators of domestic violence, and other criminals?
In case you haven't noticed, the law does not adhere to some particular religion such as yours. Doing so would violate the Establishment Clause.
In my opinion, the people who go to such great effort to violate public accommodations laws are the ones who are immoral. And you are obviously advocating that immorality here.
Again, I didn't miss any point by noted these facts: None of the bakers, florists, photographers or venue-owners who were willing to violate the law and lose their businesses in order to discriminate against same-sex couples had ever expressed any objection to providing their goods and services to different-sex couples who were adulterers, homewreckers or delinquent in their child support payments. These facts simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the homophobes who discriminate against loving, responsible same-sex couples while happily serving the desires of criminals.
I used exactly the words I intended to use to convey the meaning I intended to convey. It is unequivocal delusional absurdity for Phillips (and the DOJ) to claim that a vendor who merely provides a product for an event is a participate in that event and is a participate in anyone's relationship. That inanity has no basis in the law, and it has no basis in reality.
No, what has brought about Phillips' downfall is his willingness and even eagerness to violate the law.
I like the idea of having both.
Another poster just commented, "It sounds like those who filed the complaint suffer from some sense of entitlement just because they are gay and want to force someone else to recognize it and want to go through legal channels to do so."
Anti-discrimination law makes them entitled to equal protection. Of course they feel entitled to that. They are entitled to that because of the law, just like heterosexual couples.
Breaking the law in the name of religious freedom makes news because of that law, which is why it became known to the public and why the social media reaction occurred.
I don't see any argument for having all other rights and freedoms made subordinate to the whims of those claiming that they have religious beliefs in opposition to them. Compromise is called for. There must be legal limits to what a believer can claim a right to simply because he claims it's a religious belief. That's obvious, or the religious will be free to stone adulterers to death because they believe it's God's will, or beat Satan out of their children for the same reason.
Every adjudicative body that has heard this case has agreed that Phillips violated the law by refusing to provide his goods for a same-sex couple.
It would be perfectly legal for any baker to refuse to bake a cake with bacon on it. Cakes with bacon on them are not a protected class in any public accommodations law.
It's really too bad that people who want to wrongly use their religion to violate laws don't have some principle such as "Give to Ceasar what is Cearsar's . . . "
Obviously there is no religious principle that requires adherents to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples--while happily catering to the wants and desires of criminals, no less.
Obviously there is no religious principle that requires adherents to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples--while happily catering to the wants and desires of criminals, no less.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
As the law is written, would it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to decorate a birthday cake for Hitler?
Boy named Adolf Hitler denied cake - NY Daily News
or this on political grounds?
Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report - Washington Times
Fascists aren't a protected class.
No.
No.
You are free to discriminate in both cases.
Here is the relevant part of CADA:
It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . . .
Notanumber
A Free Man
Every member of the city staff is. And a corporation isn't an individual with a conscience either.
That's current law. Also under current law, businesses that fall under public accommodation laws are required to obey those laws.
... but you aren't talking about how the law is; you're talking about how it ought to be.
I wasn't thinking of the noise as the objection. There's plenty for someone to conscientiously object to in the Jehovah's Witnesses.Anyone who lives in proximity to a Kingdom Hall has little to complain about. We are very well behaved.
The person operating his own business has been helped in many ways by the state: zoning and business licensing laws have stopped at least some of the potential competitors he would have had to deal with. He gets benefit by this by being able to charge higher prices than he could in a more competitive market. I don't think it's too much to ask for the government to say that, in exchange for this, the business has to act in accordance with basic human decency to help meet society's needs in a reasonable way. Basic ethics aren't an unreasonable demand.
Again, we're talking about how things should be, not about how things are.
... but what I hear you saying is that government employees shouldn't be able refuse their services based on matters of conscience.
Does that include issuing marriage licenses?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It sounds mean and heartless, but boo ****ing hoo. They get so scared over these phone calls regarding opinions they voiced, but LBGT people get more than phone calls just for existing, from those who stand with the baker to keep the LBGT community repressed. They want to ridicule and harass us, but when someone snaps at them they cry "oh poor me."
Stanyon
WWMRD?
My post concerned two children, one a 9 year old that wanted a Trump birthday cake and a child of 3 years who had no control over his name choice
Your post comes across as a mixed bag of cultivated victimism and playing fast and loose with the truth.
I don't need to watch a video to know that Phillips intentionally and happily discriminated against a same-sex couple and thereby violated Colorado's public acccommodations law. If Phillips has suffered because of his illegal discrimination, good for him.
I guess you must have comprehension problems....it often comes from doing this....
This question was addressed already.
In case you haven't noticed, I have no interest in what "the law" of man or any "Establishment Clause" says if it contravenes God's law. I am a law abiding person in all of the ways that matter......but I will not be dictated to by any human who thinks wielding a big stick gives them the right to force me into submission.
I have a conscience and no one is going to bully me into violating it. Do you understand this?
LOL....you have no idea what immorality is, in that case. Moral laws come from the Bible and I uphold them. That doesn't mean that I go around bagging out gays or lobbying governments to ban them or punish them.....they can do whatever they like....just don't expect me to condone their lifestyle when I know that God condemns it.....and no law of man can make me accept it.
I have answered all that already too. You have selective hearing apparently. It's your way or no way...right?
That is the way you want to paint it, but that is not the way it is at all. Read the responses and see that your accusations are without foundation. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the opposite....I am not a hypocrite. I practice what I preach.
Yes, that was obvious. I am wondering if this is this personal with you?
In your opinion it may be whatever you want it to be.....but what is your opinion worth? What is "the law" of man worth if it violates a person's conscience? You think a law makes any difference to something being right or wrong?
Why are the feelings homosexuals more important than my feelings or the feelings of others who uphold Bible principles? Is their sense of "offense" greater than ours? Live and let live......is that not a better way to handle this question? TBH we are sick to death of hearing about gay rights. I don't want to see men kissing other men...and gays in sexually provocative outfits parading through the streets in front of impressionable children. It makes me feel very uncomfortable. We all have the right to our own opinion and no law can change that. Whatever it is that molds your feelings, doesn't mold mine.
Why make a big deal out of this ridiculous and petty incident in a bakery? Were there not other bakers who would gladly have made them a cake and decorated it for them? Just seems like litigious Americans doing what they do best....
......sue the socks of anyone who looks sideways at them. Cry foul and get press coverage or money.
Gay couples have been living together as "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" for decades....but now everyone has to call their "union" a "marriage". WHY? Even the terminology is a joke. What does a celebrant say? "I now pronounce you husband and husband"? or "wife and wife"? What does a child call these people who are raising them? "Mom #1 and "Mom #2" or "Dad #1 and "Dad #2"?
Can a man have a "husband"? Or a woman have a "wife"......? Do you not see how ridiculous this is? If you are going to call it "marriage" then the terminology has to change too. Unmarried people have been calling their common law 'spouses' their "partner" for decades without the need for marriage at all. What is to prevent these gay people from having a commitment ceremony if they want one? A civil union would give them all the same legal rights as other partnerships.
"Marriage" is Biblical and the terms of that marriage are between a husband and a wife....a man and a woman. It was meant to be the start of a new family, bringing children into the world through the natural means of conceiving them. Gay couples need the services of a third party because their sex life is never going to give them children...is it? Psychologically, children need the balance of a mother and a father figure in their lives.
SMH....you just don't get principle do you? His eagerness was to obey a higher law. I would have done the same.
Last edited:
No, I am talking about the way things are for us....you can make up your own mind about what you believe. I am not imposing my views on anyone. The law cannot force me to go against my conscience.....it may penalize me for not obeying, but it makes no difference to my position.
I will not be bullied into surrendering my right to free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of thought, just because someone is offended by what I say. If you want to live under a dictatorship where the state dictates your actions.....that is what you are upholding.
I would steer clear of any employment or business that was subject to the kind of laws that would trouble my conscience in the first place. I would rather clean windows or offices in the wee small hours of the morning, than be constantly going into battle over someone wanting to trample on my beliefs and values.
If I found that I could not earn a living by complying with God's laws, I would seek or create other employment. It doesn't have to be a war unless you have both sides wanting to fight. I have no desire to fight....all I want is the right to hold a free conscience....that includes your right to disagree with me without me wanting to sue you.
Last edited:
Would you like to finish that scripture quotation?
Matthew 22:21...“Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”....do you get the picture?
Oh please.....
Romans 1:18, 19, 24, 26-28:
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. . . .Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. . . .
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting."
Don't know your Bible well enough to use it as a defense apparently.
Notanumber
A Free Man
That sounds like blinkered justice.
You're talking about how you would, though.
If you choose to disobey the law, that's on you.
Public accommodation laws are not "bullying" and they have nothing to do with free speech. They're in the same spirit as public health laws: if you're going to be in business, do so in a way that doesn't hurt society... so keep your fridge cold enough and treat your customers with at least a basic standard of decency.
Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If a person's religion would require them, if they owned a bakery, to violate public health standards or treat their customers disrespectfully, as you imply yours does, they can easily avoid the conflict by simply choosing a different line of work.
It sounds like you're acknowledging that the baker's choices are instrumental in creating these sorts of conflicts. If so, I agree.
And you have that right. There are any number of professions where you will never, ever be asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Choose any of those lines of work - as you're free to do - and you can disagree to your heart's content. Your right to disagree isn't the issue; it's only when you ask for the right to be awful to other people in the name of your religion that we have a problem... and even then, only in some situations.I have no desire to fight....all I want is the right to hold a free conscience....that includes your right to disagree with me without me wanting to sue you.