It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And yet, doctors and pharmacists have had the right to conscientiously object when it comes to the sale of certain drugs and the performance of certain medical procedures for a long time and no one thinks anything of it.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

You just admitted that marriage already existed and thus is not the sole province of christianity.


I never said it was, but just because you say it's one thing does not give you the power to define it for everybody. I thought that was the reasoning behind this fight to begin with?

If your reasoning to take up the fight was sound, then it's still true, and if it was unfair for us to force you to comply, then it is equally unfair for you to force those of us who disagree to comply.


Bolded text for emphasis:

My rebuttal: And what then, gives Christians the power to define what it is?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The problem is we're not talking christian weddings or marriages here. We're talking cakes for secular weddings, or weddings of a different denomination than the christian baker. Which has literally nothing to do with the bakers religion what so ever. No one is getting married by the bakers faith. So it's not the bakers business. Weddings exist both as a secular and a religious entity. As such, the baker cannot discriminate against a state sponsored secular wedding on religious grounds, as it's not a religious wedding by the standards of his faith.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just because you can't read punctuation ...

You probably have trouble interpreting the 2nd Amendment too.




Please. I read punctuation fine. You actively misrepresented what your bible says.

If not quote Genesis, quote Matthew, quote anything else and show where the text says "And God said _____" or "And Jesus said ______" with the blank being "marriage is between a man and a woman only."

You can't. You know you can't. And that's why you're desperately trying to throw up the 2nd Amendment as a smoke screen.

That's pretty desperate.

It's easy to resolve this. Just quote your bible. Show us where your god said what marriage is or where Jesus said what marriage is. Not your interpretation, not your church's interpretation ... just the text ... just the Word.



“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This is what Jesus says in reply to the Pharisees he is talking about Genesis.

We see "he replied" and we see "and said" in the text. Who said? Please explain that to me. Who said in that quote.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Is the cake part of the ceremony? If the cake is part of the ceremony, the baker feels he is participating.

A black mass is not of the faith of a Catholic priest either, but would you argue that on those grounds he should be forced to participate in one?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

And yet, doctors and pharmacists have had the right to conscientiously object when it comes to the sale of certain drugs and the performance of certain medical procedures for a long time and no one thinks anything of it.



More subterfuge.

We aren't talking about some cases, some individuals, some certain circumstances, etc.

Chaos and I were talking about their suggestion that any store owner or store employee should be able to control what the store sells to the general public based on what that individual believes about the possible uses of the objects.

By the way, did you find those biblical quotes yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's a secular non religious wedding, once again, his faith has no part in it. It's not a christian wedding between the gay couple and the lord of the bakers faith. It's between the gay couple and the state. His faith has no part in this.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

He participates in the wedding about as much as walmart does if it supplies the napkins from the shelf, get real.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just because you can't read punctuation ...

You probably have trouble interpreting the 2nd Amendment too.




Please. I read punctuation fine. You actively misrepresented what your bible says.

If not quote Genesis, quote Matthew, quote anything else and show where the text says "And God said _____" or "And Jesus said ______" with the blank being "marriage is between a man and a woman only."

You can't. You know you can't. And that's why you're desperately trying to throw up the 2nd Amendment as a smoke screen.

That's pretty desperate.

It's easy to resolve this. Just quote your bible. Show us where your god said what marriage is or where Jesus said what marriage is. Not your interpretation, not your church's interpretation ... just the text ... just the Word.



“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This is what Jesus says in reply to the Pharisees he is talking about Genesis.

We see "he replied" and we see "and said" in the text. Who said? Please explain that to me. Who said in that quote.
Can you point us to the part where Jesus says "But no queers!"

I'm still foggy on that one. See, the bible was pretty damn clear in defining what a sin is. There are seven of them.
The bible was also pretty clear on what it's commandments were. There are ten of them.

Yet nowhere in the list of sins, or the ten commandments, does it say "Don't fancy your neighbor Gary." You'd think if it was important enough to make people 2,000 years later refuse to make cakes, it MUST be at least as important as "Don't work on the sabbath". Which people break CONSTANTLY. And besides, isn't forgiveness through Jesus? Aren't sinners able to ask Jesus for forgiveness and have a clean karmic slate? Why not just bake the damn cake, say a quick "Sorry Big J, it's just business, we good? We good." and go on about your life?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

You just admitted that marriage already existed and thus is not the sole province of christianity.


I never said it was, but just because you say it's one thing does not give you the power to define it for everybody. I thought that was the reasoning behind this fight to begin with?

If your reasoning to take up the fight was sound, then it's still true, and if it was unfair for us to force you to comply, then it is equally unfair for you to force those of us who disagree to comply.


Bolded text for emphasis:

My rebuttal: And what then, gives Christians the power to define what it is?


I addressed that. If it was wrong before, it's still wrong now.

So, if you walk in a say this is a marriage and I say it's not, who gets to impose their way? If it's wrong, then it's wrong and neither of us should win.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I did. Did you answer my question yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

He didn't.

He did say sin no more, but that's addressed to all of us.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Is the cake part of the ceremony? If the cake is part of the ceremony, the baker feels he is participating.


I have literally never witnesses a cake involved in a wedding ceremony; ever. I have, however, witnessed cakes at numerous wedding receptions; you know, the after party.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yep, that's what the text says.

That is Jesus responding to the Pharisees' question about whether divorce could be had at will.

What facts do we see in what Jesus said?

"Haven't you read" ... the Pharisees are challenging Jesus' knowledge of the Torah. It's a religious show down. Jesus is referring to the passage in Genesis that you actually cited!

Genesis 2:21-25



21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.


Your god is not speaking in Genesis.

Jesus is quoting the Torah back at the Pharisees.

And in neither place, and in no other place does the bible say "And god said marriage was between a man and a woman only"

Neither did Jesus.

And before you do the "are you saying that Jesus is lying" thing again, get real. Matthew is, at best, remembering quotes from 20 years before. (At best, that's assuming a LOT for the sake of this Argument)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Religious christian marriage of specific denomination,

and

secular state sponsored marriage

two different things with different definitions. BOTH can be right.

the problem comes in that the christian insists on trying to ignore one and only use their own narrowly defined definition.

The problem comes in that the Christian will insist that everyone be restricted to the first one's definition for their particular faith, and not recognize there are complete different marriages that are not related to or connected to their faith in any way what so ever.

The problem is, Christians are trying to steal the words marriage, and weddings, so that they belong to them and them alone, when that's one, not their right, and two was never just theirs in the first place.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice try. Answer my actual question. You're like Hillary answering the CNN Info Babe about her server ...




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Isn't the Cake used for the Celebration after the Wedding?... so he wouldn't be participating in any Wedding.. he would be participating in the After Party



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You do not need to throw stones about misleading and misrepresenting anything.

The 2nd Amendment didn't work as subterfuge, so now you're trying Hillary?

This gets more pathetic as we go along.

Just quote the Bible in any place, where it says "And god said marriage is between a man and a woman only."

.. or replace god with Jesus, since you do that already.

If you can't do that then admit that your statement about "what god said" was a lie.

BTW, there is no punctuation in either ancient Hebrew or Aramaic ... but I'm sure you know that.
edit on 15Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:54:42 -050015p032015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I can't believe I have to spell this out.

"Thou shalst not caketh thine celebrants of fornicatory".

Not word for word, but it's implied.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Meanwhile, back to the actual topic of the thread ...

The anti-gay bakery and the non-existent ‘gag order’



Oregon Labor Commission Brad Avakian did, in fact, issue this order (pdf), concluding that Sweet Cakes was guilty of discrimination and ordering the owners to pay $135,000 in damages. As part of the findings, Avakian noted that the owners had made clear that they intend to continue to discriminate going forward.


The link to Avakian's actual order is here.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join