It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ketsuko
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?
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.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yet still a State's Right to determine their own definition of marriage .
You do know the powers of the US Federal Government VS the State's rights , yes ?
Marriage involves the issuance of a license that affects property rights, power-of-attorney and other assets to name a few ...these are not religious matters but temporal, civil ... legal.
The market will decide. If a baker decides not to bake "a Boobie cake" as you suggested, then let it be so.
originally posted by: lakenheath24
What if a gay baker refuses to bake a boobie cake or an atheist refuses to bake a jesus cake? The whole issue is ludacriss. Let the market decide.
a reply to: Edumakated
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko
We're discussing the SCOTUS decision that corrected Colorado's assault on a man's religious rights while maintaining the right of Colorado to protect the civil rights of all citizens, gay, straight or what have you.
Those civil rights might cover buying cakes or being married ... rights that all Americans have.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra
where do you get that marriage is a "religious issue"?
ya, for some, their is a great deal of religious significance in a marriage...
but that isn't to say that a union with no religious undertones, recognized by the community is less of a marriage and to be honest, historically speaking that was the most common form of marriage till the catholic church decided that forcing marriages to within the church would bring them more money into the coffers.