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

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: howtonhawky

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

You keep talking about facts not feelings. Why? Are people here talking about feelings?

source it and realize it is nothing but thoughts and feelings and is not in the constitution

who needs sources when one is trying to make an invalid point

you are referencing a letter to danbury baptist

you are conflating the term separation of church and state with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

one is constitutional the other is not at all

do you know that the department of education guidelines tells teachers that children are free to and should pray at school and that religion is a necessary part of education

a reply to: howtonhawky

LOL. Saying that Thomas Jefferson's letter about the First Amendment is nothing but thoughts and feelings.
Too priceless.

you are conflating the term separation of church and state with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Are you saying that the SCOTUS conflated it?

You are hilarious.

What if I told you your entire post is nothing but thoughts and feelings?

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: howtonhawky

LOL. Saying that Thomas Jefferson's letter about the First Amendment is nothing but thoughts and feelings.
Too priceless.

you are conflating the term separation of church and state with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Are you saying that the SCOTUS conflated it?

You are hilarious.

What if I told you your entire post is nothing but thoughts and feelings?

you made the claim that separation of church and state is constitutional.

i proved you incorrect

what you referenced is not constitutional and if jefferson wanted to do something other than write letters to the baptist about it then he would have put it in the constitution.

there is no real life in the saying separation of church and state just ignorance

i am saying you conflated the two as do most people

if you make the claim that i only post thoughts and feeling then you would have to back that up with facts



so in conclusion we can not make laws that respect religion but we can indeed have religion in government and that is protected by the constitution

a reply to: Edumakated


In the near future, conservatives will rue the day they started carving out legal doctrine about sincerely held beliefs.

It can and will be used against them, as they say.

a reply to: RowanBean

Some folks like Wikipedia ...

In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Source

I believe I would trust the SCOTUS intepretation over random opinions on the internet, eh?

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Edumakated


In the near future, conservatives will rue the day they started carving out legal doctrine about sincerely held beliefs.

It can and will be used against them, as they say.

You mean like, say, if a Muslim city council decided to implement Sharia law? Hmmm.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RowanBean

Some folks like Wikipedia ...

In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Source

I believe I would trust the SCOTUS intepretation over random opinions on the internet, eh?

Yep. According to howtonhawky, the SCOTUS conflated the First Amendment with separation of church and state. I guess he knows better than them, eh?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Its implied within the first amendment.

If you have a state run religion, then by virtue of said religion, there is religious tyranny being propagated. The government is not allowed to infringe on your rights to religion, and any participation would imply support for religion.

the "wall" isn't directly stated...its implicit.

The separation of Church and State is not so much as keeping religion out of politics as it is more in keeping politics out of religion. We need to remember that all of this came from England where they had a State controlled church and that is what our forefathers wanted to avoid in allowing ALL religions to have the same freedom. For people to have the assumption that the State needs to have an atheist type view is very far from our forefathers desires who were vastly religious in themselves.

Human sexuality is a behavior and how we all align within that behavior it can be legal or illegal and even when it is legal we still need to deal with what each of us see as moral and immoral within our social norms. This is a hard subject to deal with when we are trying to meet the needs of religious freedoms and other freedoms that may not align.

One thing to think about is the baker did not refuses to bake the couple any cake based on their sexuality, just not a marriage cake, so any other type cake he would be more than willing to make for them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The separation of Church and State is not so much as keeping religion out of politics as it is more in keeping politics out of religion. We need to remember that all of this came from England where they had a State controlled church and that is what our forefathers wanted to avoid in allowing ALL religions to have the same freedom. For people to have the assumption that the State needs to have an atheist type view is very far from our forefathers desires who were vastly religious in themselves.

Human sexuality is a behavior and how we all align within that behavior it can be legal or illegal and even when it is legal we still need to deal with what each of us see as moral and immoral within our social norms. This is a hard subject to deal with when we are trying meet the needs of religious freedoms and other freedoms that may not align.

One thing to think about is the baker did not refuses to bake the couple any cake based on their sexuality, just not a marriage cake, so any other type cake he would be more than willing to make for them.

BINGO it all came from england

that is where jefferson was when he wrote the letter to the baptist citing church and state and at the same time the convention of states was happening without one mention of separating the two.

a reply to: Xtrozero

One thing to think about is the baker did not refuses to bake the couple any cake based on their sexuality, just not a marriage cake, so any other type cake he would be more than willing to make for them.

Does he bake wedding cakes for any people of different race, creed, beliefs, disability, etc? If so then yes he did refuse to bake wedding cake to the gay couple as he singled them out. Notice that he doesn't want to "participate" what he believes to be sinful? Some people are divorced which is forbidden in certain circumstance in the Bible so they can't remarry. So why doesn't he refuse service to those people? He'd be "participating" in their sin.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Just curious... what do you think the First Amendment mean since you know so much more than the SCOTUS and Thomas Jefferson?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

Its implied within the first amendment.

If you have a state run religion, then by virtue of said religion, there is religious tyranny being propagated. The government is not allowed to infringe on your rights to religion, and any participation would imply support for religion.

the "wall" isn't directly stated...its implicit.

IMPLIED

nice opinion

i am getting the thought that not everyone agrees with you or else they would have made it ia point to include it

perhaps they were busy that day and forgot to make the addition

if what you put forth is correct then why did it take hundreds of years for this to begin to be brought up in this manner

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...


this here in wiki is another opinion of what it means and we can exclude the part about the state or gov. can make a law that helps religions one or all

that is preposterous and would nullify most all laws

that would be discrimination to only make laws that do not benefit churches

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

I appreciate your interpretation.

However, it is still MY heartfelt belief that Jesus wants me to give to God for the work of His Church on earth and not pay taxes.

Do my First Amendment religious rights supercede the tax laws?

Damn! You're really making me work for this -- and it's a good question so good for you!!! Put up or shut up, Bo...

In a nutshell: YES! Because the First Amendment does not give you those rights... the First Amendment demands that government protect and defend those absolute and inalienable rights.

Therefore, government has no power or authority to make any law that would force you to choose. If it is your sincere belief that anything and everything you acquire or achieve beyond the necessities of maintaining and nurturing life is to be given to the church (or temple or coven or whatever), then any law demanding otherwise is a clear violation of your inalienable and absolute natural rights, and a clear violation of the powers granted government under the Constitution. THEY are out of line for putting you in that position.

Just because folks can print pretty pieces of paper and assign an arbitrary power to them doesn't mean those pretty pieces of paper (or precious metals melded into specific shapes and sizes) now supercede your natural and inalienable rights endowed by Nature's God.

originally posted by: RowanBean

Does he bake wedding cakes for any people of different race, creed, beliefs, disability, etc? If so then yes he did refuse to bake wedding cake to the gay couple as he singled them out. Notice that he doesn't want to "participate" what he believes to be sinful? Some people are divorced which is forbidden in certain circumstance in the Bible so they can't remarry. So why doesn't he refuse service to those people? He'd be "participating" in their sin.

Maybe he does... Need to ask him who all of what he does not want to make a marriage cake for. We need to remove Government out of marriage and leave it to individual choices as to what it means. When you have many religions that put a good number of restrictions on what marriage can and can not be you are playing with fire to throw Government into the mix and then dictate what it will be.

a reply to: howtonhawky

If you read the history on the Bill of Rights, they were added in because people knew that the folks of the future were tyrannical assholes. Most founders believed the Constitution layed out the case for the bill of rights clearly already....some did not. So the bill of rights was drafted to ensure that protections would not be swayed.

SCOTUS has ruled in support of this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Let me also add to my previous comment: The same is true for anyone who believes in the "Church of Me"... in other words, they believe in no higher or outside power at all. If they think the fruits of all their labor should go to themselves and no one else, so be it.

Hence, again, no individual tax on the fruits of a person's labor!!!

However, those fictional legal entities called "corporations," which get perks and privileges and entitlements from government, can and should be held to the same standards as government. In other words, no discrimination.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Edumakated


In the near future, conservatives will rue the day they started carving out legal doctrine about sincerely held beliefs.

It can and will be used against them, as they say.

You mean like, say, if a Muslim city council decided to implement Sharia law? Hmmm.

People can have deep and sincerely-held beliefs about anything. And there are new religions that have sprung up over the past few years. Religious freedome isn't just for cranky christians.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is a step in the right direction when it comes to respecting the beliefs of others.

It is the right of an individual to choose their own beliefs. That's something lost in our scramble towards our own gratification in life. However, there was no line drawn that's separates this issue as it infringes on the rights of another person to force them into committing an action that would be contrary to their own beliefs.

In other words, you should never expect someone to support your beliefs just because you give them money. I was raised around many gay individuals, and I've got a unique perspective on being gay versus being sexually confused. I have many friends that are bisexual as well as gay, and they all know that their lifestyle isn't one Id choose for myself.

They know I whole heartily support them and their decisions, however, despite it being against my morals. It has absolutely no bearing on how I view my friends because I love them for who they are. I wouldn't change them, and they would never want me to change if I didn't believe it was right for me.

In closing, we must respect each other's beliefs. We don't have to cater to those beliefs, and we must respect each individual equally without imposing those beliefs on others.