Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK :smiliehug: before she'll do the right thing.

I don't see it that way. It's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys.

Hmm..so you're a libertarian who thinks that PA is "protection?"

No. I was characterizing what I perceive to be the motives of people like Seawytch. I think I've been very clear that I think PA laws amount to group privilege.
 
I support gay rights and gay marriage but a few things stand out:
Baker is in no way giving away any of his religious beliefs, caving into them or not standing by them by baking them a damn cake.
Why would anyone want to do business with someone that does not like them? The gay couple could have found another baker to accommodate their wishes
The informative requirements placed on employers to inform their employees of the statute are ridiculous after the fact.
It is bad business practice to turn law abiding customers away because of religious beliefs. Respect for all people is what Christianity is all about. Bake them the cake and love thy neighbor.

I agree with you to a point. I think what you describe is the right thing to do. But I think there are a couple of specifics on this case that makes me question it.

1) It doesn't matter what we think are the practical applications of the Christian faith. People get to decide that for themselves.

2) Most Christians consider marriage to be a sacrament of the Church. And it's not a big stretch to consider contributing goods or services to a same-sex marriage as contributing to that marriage.

3) I believe same-sex marriage to be a 14th Amendment issue. Same sex couples are legally entitled to all the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples.

4) But the freedom to practice your religion is a 1st Amendment issue.

5) Under those competing interests, I would say that while same-sex couples have a right to the same treatment, that doesn't necessarily mean a cake from the baker of their choice. And I would prefer to defend religious freedom as aggressively as possible.

So yeah, I would bake the darn cake. And yeah, if a baker didn't want to make my cake, I would go elsewhere. But my personal beliefs are not law and the law needs to respect different personal beliefs imho.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it that way. It's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys.

Hmm..so you're a libertarian who thinks that PA is "protection?"

No. I was characterizing what I perceive to be the motives of people like Seawytch. I think I've been very clear that I think PA laws amount to group privilege.

I was addressing that you said "t's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys."

I had veggie sausage with breakfast this morning. I want government to validate that I'm equal to people who had meat sausage.
 
Hmm..so you're a libertarian who thinks that PA is "protection?"

No. I was characterizing what I perceive to be the motives of people like Seawytch. I think I've been very clear that I think PA laws amount to group privilege.

I was addressing that you said "t's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys."

I had veggie sausage with breakfast this morning. I want government to validate that I'm equal to people who had meat sausage.

has anyone ever tried to deny you your choice of veggie sausage?
 
When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

The issue doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, public accommodations laws are Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause:

The exemptions in the NMHRA are ordinary exemptions for religious organizations and for certain limited employment and real-estate transactions. The exemptions do not prefer secular conduct over religious conduct or evince any hostility toward religion. We hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such it does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

The commerce claus doesn't trump my "or prohibit the free exercise thereof."
 
No. I was characterizing what I perceive to be the motives of people like Seawytch. I think I've been very clear that I think PA laws amount to group privilege.

I was addressing that you said "t's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys."

I had veggie sausage with breakfast this morning. I want government to validate that I'm equal to people who had meat sausage.

has anyone ever tried to deny you your choice of veggie sausage?

"anyone" = "government" LOL
 
Last edited:
Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK :smiliehug: before she'll do the right thing.

What is wrong with validating everyone as equal to each other?

That's simple - it's compelled belief under duress from government.

People are allowed to believe what they want....BUT if you run a business of making wedding cakes, and said wedding is legal....you as a business owner cannot refuse them service while giving that same service to others....just like if you don't like re-marriages after a divorce for religious reasons, if you sell wedding cakes for a business you can't refuse to serve those people either.

I wonder how many other people getting married (previously divorced) that cake maker refused.
 
What is wrong with validating everyone as equal to each other?

That's simple - it's compelled belief under duress from government.

People are allowed to believe what they want....BUT if you run a business of making wedding cakes, and said wedding is legal....you as a business owner cannot refuse them service while giving that same service to others....just like if you don't like re-marriages after a divorce for religious reasons, if you sell wedding cakes for a business you can't refuse to serve those people either.

I wonder how many other people getting married (previously divorced) that cake maker refused.

Because of course business owners are not free citizens, all money belongs to the State, and we are making money, so we belong to the State. We don't have rights like regular people to make our own decisions.
 
I've got a news flash for you leftists. I don't get my rights from my government and government can't take them away.
 
You don't have the right to force me to labor for you simply because you like ass fucking. Pass all the laws you want. You're still sick perverted trash.
 
Last edited:
That's simple - it's compelled belief under duress from government.

People are allowed to believe what they want....BUT if you run a business of making wedding cakes, and said wedding is legal....you as a business owner cannot refuse them service while giving that same service to others....just like if you don't like re-marriages after a divorce for religious reasons, if you sell wedding cakes for a business you can't refuse to serve those people either.

I wonder how many other people getting married (previously divorced) that cake maker refused.

Because of course business owners are not free citizens, all money belongs to the State, and we are making money, so we belong to the State. We don't have rights like regular people to make our own decisions.

That's what they want the commerce clause to mean - that no one may dare engage in trade without permission from the state.
 
What is wrong with validating everyone as equal to each other?



That's simple - it's compelled belief under duress from government.



People are allowed to believe what they want....BUT if you run a business of making wedding cakes, and said wedding is legal....you as a business owner cannot refuse them service while giving that same service to others....just like if you don't like re-marriages after a divorce for religious reasons, if you sell wedding cakes for a business you can't refuse to serve those people either.



I wonder how many other people getting married (previously divorced) that cake maker refused.


They are hypocrisy resistant to that sort of thing. They'd bake a cake for a couple of fatties (gluttony, one of the DEADLY sins) but not for two guys. :rolleyes:
 
The commission’s order requires Phillips to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies in violation of his beliefs, institute re-education classes for his staff on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and send quarterly “compliance” reports to the commission for two years.

Whoooooa; hold the fucking phone.

Re-education classes - is this the communist USSR?
 
The commission’s order requires Phillips to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies in violation of his beliefs, institute re-education classes for his staff on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and send quarterly “compliance” reports to the commission for two years.

Whoooooa; hold the fucking phone.

Re-education classes - is this the communist USSR?

Nope. The USSR ran out of money. We have more to burn.
 
That's simple - it's compelled belief under duress from government.

People are allowed to believe what they want....BUT if you run a business of making wedding cakes, and said wedding is legal....you as a business owner cannot refuse them service while giving that same service to others....just like if you don't like re-marriages after a divorce for religious reasons, if you sell wedding cakes for a business you can't refuse to serve those people either.

I wonder how many other people getting married (previously divorced) that cake maker refused.

Because of course business owners are not free citizens, all money belongs to the State, and we are making money, so we belong to the State. We don't have rights like regular people to make our own decisions.

The commission’s order requires Phillips to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies in violation of his beliefs, institute re-education classes for his staff on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and send quarterly “compliance” reports to the commission for two years.

Whoooooa; hold the fucking phone.

Re-education classes - is this the communist USSR?

It's for your own good. Ever see "The Body Snatchers"?
 
Common mistranslations in English versions of the Bible:

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are often mistranslated in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

  • "qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

  • "to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.
This person was participating in a Gay Pride rally in Baltimore. Any ideas on the meaning/translation of the hebrew in their tattoo?

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top