Hobby Lobby, Cakes, Photos & Marriage Itself: Foreshadowing?

[Silhouette]

Does Hobby Lobby have its own religious rights, beyond the religious rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby? To some, it sounds like a silly question. To others, that’s the real crux of the issue.

I’ve written about the Colorado bakery that was accused of discrimination because its owners are Christian and refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believe gay marriage is Biblically wrong. When the owner lost a legal challenge, he announced he’d no longer make any wedding cakes, for gay couples or straight couples.

The bakery owner argued that to make a cake for a gay wedding meant he was “participating” in the wedding or was condoning something that was against his religious views.

The fundamental question is an individual’s religious practice and a company’s religious practice.

If you, as an individual, choose to not support gay marriage, then you, as an individual, should have that right. You should not accept invitations to such ceremonies, assuming anyone who happens to be gay would be close enough to you to invite you to begin with. That’s your right.

When you open a publicly-licensed business, do you have the right to project your personal religious views on a business and have your business practices mirror your personal practices?... http://www.patrickkphillips.com/2014/07/02/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-birth-control/

So, we have a decision that says if a company's owners have closely held religious beliefs, they may deny service to those wanting a service from them that violates those beliefs at their core. The Hobby Lobby case was interesting in that the morning-after pill doesn't cause abortion because the woman was never pregnant to begin with. Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants in a woman. That pill simply never allows implantation to occur.

That may be splitting hairs but of course the real impact of the Hobby Lobby case is how it will affect religious objections to other services people may be seeking but the owners refuse to condone in action, speech or deed.

Enter: gay wedding cakes & photos. Even the case of the LGBTs vs Utah.

Of course to argue the points in this thread, you have to accept that LGBTs are mere behaviors, a cult at best; and not qualifying as a gender, country of origin, race or religion.

So whereas a company cannot refuse to provide a product or service to someone because she is black or a woman, or a jew or originally from Ethiopia; they can if she is a lesbian black woman who is jewish from Ethiopia. And that is because she was BORN black, BORN a woman, BORN to a legitimate religion and BORN in Ethiopia. She acquired lesbianism along the way. And it is an aberrent sexual behavior.

So therein lies the crucial difference. More can be researched here on launching that premise for the purposes of this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

In the case of Utah we have an even more compelling reason to allow them to deny gay marriage upon their 2/3rds majority who enacted their constitutional amendment that says marriage is "between a man and a woman". We have their unique law that says only married people may adopt orphaned kids. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that LGBT subculturalists have embraced Harvey Milk as their socio-sexual values-leader; and that he preyed sexually upon minor orphaned teen boys while officiating as their "guardian & father figure". Instead, let's just examine the merits of this thread's OP when seeing if Utah has even more cause to object to "provide service" to certain people doing certain things or holding certain dogmatic beliefs: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Do you think that the Hobby Lobby case was a foreshadow by the US Supreme Court to soften the blow they may be considering delivering as to the various cases on gay marriage marching their way there by next year? After all, Utah is a state all-about deeply held religious convictions. How can a business be allowed to deny service based on a closely held faith belief but voters may not?

 

[Ravi]

If you go down that road I suppose at the end of the road states will be able to outlaw gay couples period.

But that goes against the constitution.

As does allowing a corporation more rights than individuals.

Quite a sticky mess these con judges have shat out.

 

[Silhouette]

If you go down that road I suppose at the end of the road states will be able to outlaw gay couples period.

But that goes against the constitution.

As does allowing a corporation more rights than individuals.

Quite a sticky mess these con judges have shat out.

How? How does denying gays or polygamists or minors or incest couplings in marriage "go against the constitution"?

One of the Justices in the Windsor & Prop 8 twin hearings asked one of the pro-LGBT attorneys to tell him where in the Constitution marriage is a "right"? He couldn't of course because it isn't in there. It's a socially-regulated privelege defined historically and to present time by the citizens of each respective state. And the ONLY exceptions to that steadfast rule are where the 14th applies. Since mere sexual behaviors are not a gender, nor a race, nor a religion, nor a country of origin, gays have no "rights" to be married anymore than minors or polygamists do.

 

[Ravi]

If you go down that road I suppose at the end of the road states will be able to outlaw gay couples period.

But that goes against the constitution.

As does allowing a corporation more rights than individuals.

Quite a sticky mess these con judges have shat out.

How? How does denying gays or polygamists or minors or incest couplings in marriage "go against the constitution"?

One of the Justices in the Windsor & Prop 8 twin hearings asked one of the pro-LGBT attorneys to tell him where in the Constitution marriage is a "right"? He couldn't of course because it isn't in there. It's a socially-regulated privelege defined historically and to present time by the citizens of each respective state. And the ONLY exceptions to that steadfast rule are where the 14th applies. Since mere sexual behaviors are not a gender, nor a race, nor a religion, nor a country of origin, gays have no "rights" to be married anymore than minors or polygamists do.

There is no logical reason to disallow gay couples. Therefore a government disallowing homosexuality would be unconstitutional.

We (the government) can only deny people rights or privileges or the pursuit of happiness if there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Just that it would be against the constitution. But seemingly we are still in the thrall of rightwingloons.

 

[KNB]

Perhaps Christians should read the First Amendment and realize that the same law which grants you protection from the government also grants the government protection from you.

Silly religious caveman beliefs of magical flying people in the clouds might be fun for three-year-olds, but grown adults should be able to decipher bullshit from reality.

As long as there is a First Amendment to the US Constitution, gay marriage will be legal because religion does not make our laws. The Supreme Court is doing its best to remove that barrier, though.

 

[Silhouette]

Perhaps Christians should read the First Amendment and realize that the same law which grants you protection from the government also grants the government protection from you.

Silly religious caveman beliefs of magical flying people in the clouds might be fun for three-year-olds, but grown adults should be able to decipher bullshit from reality.

As long as there is a First Amendment to the US Constitution, gay marriage will be legal because religion does not make our laws. The Supreme Court is doing its best to remove that barrier, though.

Jude 1 of the Bible's New Testament defines the promotion or aide of encouraging a homosexual cultural spread in a region where one has influence is an act punishable by eternal death in the pit of fire. A secular law may not require a person to violate that warning at the expense of their eternal soul.

This life is short. Most hold strong beliefs that the life hereafter is much much longer. It pays to get the best flat you can in the nicest part of town if you're going to be spending eternity there. Nobody should be able to force you through some secular law in this temporary state to live on the other side of the train-tracks forever.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The master speaks - quick - post many threads ....

 

[Silhouette]

the master speaks - quick - post many threads ....

wtf?

 

[BobPlumb]

If you go down that road I suppose at the end of the road states will be able to outlaw gay couples period.

But that goes against the constitution.

As does allowing a corporation more rights than individuals.

Quite a sticky mess these con judges have shat out.

How? How does denying gays or polygamists or minors or incest couplings in marriage "go against the constitution"?

One of the Justices in the Windsor & Prop 8 twin hearings asked one of the pro-LGBT attorneys to tell him where in the Constitution marriage is a "right"? He couldn't of course because it isn't in there. It's a socially-regulated privelege defined historically and to present time by the citizens of each respective state. And the ONLY exceptions to that steadfast rule are where the 14th applies. Since mere sexual behaviors are not a gender, nor a race, nor a religion, nor a country of origin, gays have no "rights" to be married anymore than minors or polygamists do.

There is no logical reason to disallow gay couples. Therefore a government disallowing homosexuality would be unconstitutional.

We (the government) can only deny people rights or privileges or the pursuit of happiness if there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Just that it would be against the constitution. But seemingly we are still in the thrall of rightwingloons.

Guess there is no need to read the actual constitution by that logic!

 

[Ravi]

How? How does denying gays or polygamists or minors or incest couplings in marriage "go against the constitution"?

One of the Justices in the Windsor & Prop 8 twin hearings asked one of the pro-LGBT attorneys to tell him where in the Constitution marriage is a "right"? He couldn't of course because it isn't in there. It's a socially-regulated privelege defined historically and to present time by the citizens of each respective state. And the ONLY exceptions to that steadfast rule are where the 14th applies. Since mere sexual behaviors are not a gender, nor a race, nor a religion, nor a country of origin, gays have no "rights" to be married anymore than minors or polygamists do.

There is no logical reason to disallow gay couples. Therefore a government disallowing homosexuality would be unconstitutional.

We (the government) can only deny people rights or privileges or the pursuit of happiness if there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Just that it would be against the constitution. But seemingly we are still in the thrall of rightwingloons.

Guess there is no need to read the actual constitution by that logic!

otay

 

[whitehall]

It's a done deal or for the less ignorant lefties, a moot point. SCOTUS ruled that companies have the right to religious freedom just like individuals. Live with it.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no logical reason to disallow gay couples. Therefore a government disallowing homosexuality would be unconstitutional.

We (the government) can only deny people rights or privileges or the pursuit of happiness if there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Just that it would be against the constitution. But seemingly we are still in the thrall of rightwingloons.

One of the logical reasons to disallow "gay marriage" is Utah's law that says only married couples may adopt. You might want to look at this thread to see the glaringly obvious logical reason to want to stand between gay couples and adopting children: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[BobPlumb]

There is no logical reason to disallow gay couples. Therefore a government disallowing homosexuality would be unconstitutional.

We (the government) can only deny people rights or privileges or the pursuit of happiness if there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Just that it would be against the constitution. But seemingly we are still in the thrall of rightwingloons.

Guess there is no need to read the actual constitution by that logic!

otay

Laws can be illogical and or even unjust and still be constitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage Equality fight = over, but for Sil...

 

[GISMYS]

BOTTOMLINE = HOBBY LOBBY WANTS NO PART OF PAYING FOR THE MURDER OF THE UNBORN CHILDREN. PTL. but you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course "A secular law may . . .require a person to violate that warning at the expense of their eternal soul" because the secular does not recognize the religious imperative.

However, Our Lord provided the way: even so, unto Silhouette, let it pass that you render into Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Sil, your misreading of God's holy word imperils your soul.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Thread is closed for moderation..
Will reopen later..

FlaCalTenn

 

[bodecea]

I'm waiting for that sheik guy who has majority ownership of FOX News to start either firing the women or making them cover up with burquas for religious reasons. That would be very funny.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm waiting for that sheik guy who has majority ownership of FOX News to start either firing the women or making them cover up with burquas for religious reasons. That would be very funny.

Funny perhaps but terrible for ratings. Don't look for it anytime soon.

But your point is well taken though. A ruling prince of a foreign nation controlling a media outlet in our nation, one of the highest rated outlets no less, and enjoying "citizenship" "rights" without being naturalized or swearing the Oath of allegiance to the United States after foresaking his birth country is ...well....there really isn't a word for it is there?

Suffice to say that the Justices who passed Citizen's United allowing foreigners to control the very essence of our nation would have been hanged for treason clear up until the 20th Century.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does Hobby Lobby have its own religious rights, beyond the religious rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby? To some, it sounds like a silly question. To others, that’s the real crux of the issue.

I’ve written about the Colorado bakery that was accused of discrimination because its owners are Christian and refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believe gay marriage is Biblically wrong. When the owner lost a legal challenge, he announced he’d no longer make any wedding cakes, for gay couples or straight couples.

The bakery owner argued that to make a cake for a gay wedding meant he was “participating” in the wedding or was condoning something that was against his religious views.

The fundamental question is an individual’s religious practice and a company’s religious practice.

If you, as an individual, choose to not support gay marriage, then you, as an individual, should have that right. You should not accept invitations to such ceremonies, assuming anyone who happens to be gay would be close enough to you to invite you to begin with. That’s your right.

When you open a publicly-licensed business, do you have the right to project your personal religious views on a business and have your business practices mirror your personal practices?... http://www.patrickkphillips.com/2014/07/02/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-birth-control/

So, we have a decision that says if a company's owners have closely held religious beliefs, they may deny service to those wanting a service from them that violates those beliefs at their core. The Hobby Lobby case was interesting in that the morning-after pill doesn't cause abortion because the woman was never pregnant to begin with. Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants in a woman. That pill simply never allows implantation to occur.

That may be splitting hairs but of course the real impact of the Hobby Lobby case is how it will affect religious objections to other services people may be seeking but the owners refuse to condone in action, speech or deed.

Enter: gay wedding cakes & photos. Even the case of the LGBTs vs Utah.

Of course to argue the points in this thread, you have to accept that LGBTs are mere behaviors, a cult at best; and not qualifying as a gender, country of origin, race or religion.

So whereas a company cannot refuse to provide a product or service to someone because she is black or a woman, or a jew or originally from Ethiopia; they can if she is a lesbian black woman who is jewish from Ethiopia. And that is because she was BORN black, BORN a woman, BORN to a legitimate religion and BORN in Ethiopia. She acquired lesbianism along the way. And it is an aberrent sexual behavior.

So therein lies the crucial difference. More can be researched here on launching that premise for the purposes of this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

In the case of Utah we have an even more compelling reason to allow them to deny gay marriage upon their 2/3rds majority who enacted their constitutional amendment that says marriage is "between a man and a woman". We have their unique law that says only married people may adopt orphaned kids. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that LGBT subculturalists have embraced Harvey Milk as their socio-sexual values-leader; and that he preyed sexually upon minor orphaned teen boys while officiating as their "guardian & father figure". Instead, let's just examine the merits of this thread's OP when seeing if Utah has even more cause to object to "provide service" to certain people doing certain things or holding certain dogmatic beliefs: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Do you think that the Hobby Lobby case was a foreshadow by the US Supreme Court to soften the blow they may be considering delivering as to the various cases on gay marriage marching their way there by next year? After all, Utah is a state all-about deeply held religious convictions. How can a business be allowed to deny service based on a closely held faith belief but voters may not?