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.

 

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

page: 21
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Abysha

The same baker makes cakes for dog weddings.

The Atlantic

Nice to see the baker holding dogs in high esteem over gay people.

Not necessarily true (which I have found you exaggerate much and provide no substance)
That would require a knowledge of the baker's religious beliefs , and whether or not it went against them.
Or , are you saying you decide the baker's beliefs ? Or the government should ?



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


If it did not conflict , then this would be a non-starter and another frivolous post by you .


edit on 6/4/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: amazing

It never got to that point. As soon as they walked in and said they wanted a cake to celebrate their marriage, the baker shut it down.


Oh okay. Well that's pretty stupid. Jesus would have made the cake. Seriously.



2000 ya, cake was little different from bread.

Sweeter but that's about it.

No butter cream frosting. No chiffon, no chocolate, no air brushing.

Filled with dates and nuts.

Probably ok for what it was, but not what we'd call cake.

I used to make Pasticciotto, an Italian "cake" 500 yo recipe for my resto.

en.wikipedia.org...

Killer.

Cakes as we know them, came much later and a luxury.

Marie A. was making a joke that cost her her head.

Sorry, OT.



Pasticciotto looks delicious. Never had it. Adding that to my list.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 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.”
Matthew 19:3-6

Nope, nothing there about what God says a marriage is ... man and woman, one flesh ...

It was an answer to Pharisees' trick question.


Does not change the fact that it was also a definition of marriage in order to answer that question.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

www.westword.com...

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

I know I was being a bit hyperbolic, but this is what she said,


Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."


The guy took it personally, and so did 7 SCOTUS Justices, apparently.

Here's the opinion from Justice Kennedy's syllabus.


As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments


As I said, you NEVER invoke the Holocaust! Slavery and Jim Crow laws get invoked all the time though, so I think it was the Holocaust comparison that tipped the scales of hostility.


edit on 4-6-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

That is essentially the problem isn't it?

Government is trying to define marriage for everyone, and some people feel that now this falls under their definition of sexual orientation.

The problem is that most religions have their definitions of marriage, and in most cases, this is going to clash with the government one that upholds sexual orientation.

Now let's look at laws that protect both sexual orientation and religion as things you can't discriminate against.

How does any Civil Rights commission do that without discriminating against one or the other in cases like this?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Thank you for the link. So he objected to baking a rainbow-layered cake that he would have made for other couples? My question still stands - why would he object to rainbow when it's in the Bible?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 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.”
Matthew 19:3-6

Nope, nothing there about what God says a marriage is ... man and woman, one flesh ...

It was an answer to Pharisees' trick question.


Does not change the fact that it was also a definition of marriage in order to answer that question.

He never said anything about gay marriage, homosexuality or refusing to serve gay people.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 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.”
Matthew 19:3-6

Nope, nothing there about what God says a marriage is ... man and woman, one flesh ...

It was an answer to Pharisees' trick question.


Does not change the fact that it was also a definition of marriage in order to answer that question.


There were lots of harem families in Jesus' day. The one man one woman marriage was not that common. Lots of religions allowed for multiple wives.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

He objected to participating, to any degree, in a wedding ceremony his religious beliefs told him were wrong. I don't see a problem there. It seems to me to be no different than a sign making shop, whose identification is located on any signs they make, refusing to make a sign for a state-legal marijuana business because the sign maker find marijuana to be immoral and disagrees with the state legalization of it.

By the way, this happened in 2012, gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado until 2014... so the cake shop owner didn't even have to cite his religious beliefs, he simply could have said "Nope, your ceremony is not legal in CO, please look elsewhere for a baker" and avoided some of this foolishness.

edit on 4-6-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 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.”
Matthew 19:3-6

Nope, nothing there about what God says a marriage is ... man and woman, one flesh ...

It was an answer to Pharisees' trick question.


Does not change the fact that it was also a definition of marriage in order to answer that question.

He never said anything about gay marriage, homosexuality or refusing to serve gay people.


He never said anything about those topics because a gay marriage is not possible.

If God only recognizes marriage as between a man and woman which is why he made them male and female as per the definition Jesus gave, then there is no "gay" marriage because that is between man and man and woman and woman.

And homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage because there is no marriage possible between two people of the same sex for the reasons I just outlined. All sex outside of marriage is considered sin.

And as for refusing to serve gay people, that is a strawman argument.

The refusal here is not about the gay people, it's about not wanting to participate in a ceremony the baker feels is sacrilege, same as he doesn't make Halloween cakes for anyone.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So why not go all the way and put up the sign that no gay people are allowed?
I can see how well that would go over with the public. LOL. To be honest I'd love to see that just for the giggles.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



same as he doesn't make Halloween cakes for anyone.

Do you see what you typed there? Think about it for a minute.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

Because he had no issue making gay people cakes for birthdays and individual observations. He respects them as people, he just feels strongly that their marriages aren't moral. Imagine that, respecting someone while still not advocating or championing their behaviors and choices blindly!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: RowanBean

Because he had no issue making gay people cakes for birthdays and individual observations. He respects them as people, he just feels strongly that their marriages aren't moral. Imagine that, respecting someone while still not advocating or championing their behaviors and choices blindly!

I would agree with you about decoration but this is a damn cake. Also I wonder if the baker realize the hypocrisy in him picking and choosing which verses to support his beliefs.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: RowanBean

Because he had no issue making gay people cakes for birthdays and individual observations. He respects them as people, he just feels strongly that their marriages aren't moral. Imagine that, respecting someone while still not advocating or championing their behaviors and choices blindly!

I would agree with you about decoration but this is a damn cake. Also I wonder if the baker realize the hypocrisy in him picking and choosing which verses to support his beliefs.


That would seem to be a personal issue between him, his God, and his remaining customers. If his customer base doesn't bring him to task over it, then I'd say they're comfortable with his cake skills and business choices and that's the end of that. Again, I don't live there, so I could care less how he runs his business. I can only assume he makes decisions that are in the best interest of his investment and balanced between risk and profit as businesses are intended to run.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't know if this is good or not.

Sure, people should have the right to have their business how they want it. But where is that line drawn?



A company has the right to refuse a customer if:
o They are fully booked (or claim to be fully booked)
o They don't have the skills to do the customers request (hairdressers, painters, decorators, nail technicians)
o The customer has caused trouble in the past or hasn't paid bills

There are laws which make it illegal to refuse someone purely on the basis of ethnicity, skin color if the services have been advertised. A hotel owner can't refuse customers simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or the purpose of the stay - though it would be easier if the customers didn't tell them. A hotel owner may assign a room based on these things; holiday guests get the lower floors which are more noisy while business guests get a top floor side wing which is quiet.

Things get really messy when political messages become involved. If the bakers refused to bake a Brexit or Nazi cake then they would be hailed as heroes. But if they refuse a gay cake then they are villains.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: ketsuko



same as he doesn't make Halloween cakes for anyone.

Do you see what you typed there? Think about it for a minute.


Did they ask for a traditional marriage cake?

Did they ask for a cake for any other reason?

If not, then we don't know if he discriminated against them solely because they were gay.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You said that they don't make Halloween cakes for anyone. That's far cry from singling out people based on their orientation.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I don't agree with forcing people to to violate their personal conscience within reason.

For example I don't like what I am forced to go through at an airport. I am sure those of certain faiths don't like it if they have to remove articles of clothing or they can't fly either.

But perhaps there is a line, so for example maybe the baker is ok with a generic expression such as "to the happy couple" he would make that cake, but if you ask him to make rainbow flag and put it on, that might violate his conscience.
That stance needs to be respected, if he is the owner, and the court has done that, I agree with them.

I never though this was like that bartender that see's a couple dudes and says get out we don't serve your kind here. It's not like if the couple came in and asked for something pre-made he would not say get out. They were asking for a special order, and he refused, any business can make the call not to special order anything for any customer, because the customer is not always right....despite years of people saying that. There almost always right that is all.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join