Christian baker not backing down after Gov't punishes him for refusing to make gay wedding cake

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Fascinating how you object to States rights.

He said nothing of the sort.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then those laws would be fought and REPEALED or else a Kosher or halal baker/restaurant would not get such a business license. See how easy that is?

You don't like a PA law, REPEAL IT....don't get a business license and think you can just ignore the laws/regs you pretend are against your "religion".

The big difference between kosher and haall restaurants is the menu. Kosher and halaal dishes are served. In the bakeries, wedding cakes are on the menu.

you really are retarded, or you are just not getting it. Halal and kosher BUTCHERING practices, not the food itself.

Can a Dept of health ban kosher or halal slaughter or not? what about a building department?

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

 

[Picaro]

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

Mental health 'experts' like who?Many of the so-called 'researchers' are homosexuals themselves, and reading the 'science' on it shows there is zero evidence proving it's not a mental illness. The fact is the 'professionals' are liars and politicized to the point where they can't say anything to the contrary without losing their jobs and careers, and they don't have the character and morals to give that up by speaking the truth about the sickos.

'The 'mental health experts' don't have much of a record of objectivity orcredibility even before the homo hoax broke out.

Thus spake yet another science denier. And a Conservative at that. what are the odds?

I'm not a conservative nor a Christian, either. The science deniers' are behind the whole 'gay rights' hoax. you've never read any 'science' re homosexuality'; if you had you would have noticed what crap the methodologies are, for one, and you would also know that when the homosexual 'movement' began harassing the APA for three years before they ever held a vote, with agitprop, violence, and other fun methods 'scientists' use to prove stuff... and in any case, the APA did indeed vote to remove the mental disorder off the list; the vote was around 5,800 for removal, 3,800 opposed, and some 10,000 not voting at all. This set the 'standard' for all of the 'science' that followed.

Sound like it was 'all about the science n stuff' to you? Wouldn't that vote have been somewhere near 100% if there was a shred of actual 'science' involved?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

Mental health 'experts' like who?Many of the so-called 'researchers' are homosexuals themselves, and reading the 'science' on it shows there is zero evidence proving it's not a mental illness. The fact is the 'professionals' are liars and politicized to the point where they can't say anything to the contrary without losing their jobs and careers, and they don't have the character and morals to give that up by speaking the truth about the sickos.

'The 'mental health experts' don't have much of a record of objectivity orcredibility even before the homo hoax broke out.

Thus spake yet another science denier. And a Conservative at that. what are the odds?

I'm not a conservative nor a Christian, either. The science deniers' are behind the whole 'gay rights' hoax. you've never read any 'science' re homosexuality'; if you had you would have noticed what crap the methodologies are, for one, and you would also know that when the homosexual 'movement' began harassing the APA for three years before they ever held a vote, with agitprop, violence, and other fun methods 'scientists' use to prove stuff... and in any case, the APA did indeed vote to remove the mental disorder off the list; the vote was around 5,800 for removal, 3,800 opposed, and some 10,000 not voting at all. This set the 'standard' for all of the 'science' that followed.

Sound like it was 'all about the science n stuff' to you? Wouldn't that vote have been somewhere near 100% if there was a shred of actual 'science' involved?

Hey brother, youre always welcome to become christian and conservative.

 

[Syriusly]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Fascinating how you object to States rights.

He said nothing of the sort.

Does the State of Colorado have the right to regulate business within its state?

Or should the Federal Court tell a State that it can't?

Yep- a State's right issue.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Fascinating how you object to States rights.

He said nothing of the sort.

Does the State of Colorado have the right to regulate business within its state?

Or should the Federal Court tell a State that it can't?

Yep- a State's right issue.

I agree with you for once, the only point of contention is the feds usurp certain biddness rights in states. This is not arguable.... You know this is true.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

There are consequences to breaking the law.

Personally, I would be a lot more sympathetic if these anti-christian assholes would stop forcing their crap on those who don't want it. What they're doing is the opposite of what Jesus taught and if the religious nutters want to behave like the hate group they really are, they should lose their non-profit status.





Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

It's not about the cake, it's about ******'s pushing their psychosis on everyone.

Nope. There is nothing in this simple business transaction that forces the hate group to agree with or behave like sane human beings who are celebrating their love and committment.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JusticeHammer]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

It's not about the cake, it's about ******'s pushing their psychosis on everyone.

Nope. There is nothing in this simple business transaction that forces the hate group to agree with or behave like sane human beings who are celebrating their love and committment.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Sounds like your calling gays a hate group, bout time you see their true colors.

 

[Syriusly]

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

Mental health 'experts' like who?Many of the so-called 'researchers' are homosexuals themselves, and reading the 'science' on it shows there is zero evidence proving it's not a mental illness. The fact is the 'professionals' are liars and politicized to the point where they can't say anything to the contrary without losing their jobs and careers, and they don't have the character and morals to give that up by speaking the truth about the sickos.

'The 'mental health experts' don't have much of a record of objectivity orcredibility even before the homo hoax broke out.

Thus spake yet another science denier. And a Conservative at that. what are the odds?

I'm not a conservative nor a Christian, either. The science deniers' are behind the whole 'gay rights' hoax. you've never read any 'science' re homosexuality'; if you had you would have noticed what crap the methodologies are, for one, and you would also know that when the homosexual 'movement' began harassing the APA for three years before they ever held a vote, with agitprop, violence, and other fun methods 'scientists' use to prove stuff... and in any case, the APA did indeed vote to remove the mental disorder off the list; the vote was around 5,800 for removal, 3,800 opposed, and some 10,000 not voting at all. This set the 'standard' for all of the 'science' that followed.

Sound like it was 'all about the science n stuff' to you? Wouldn't that vote have been somewhere near 100% if there was a shred of actual 'science' involved?

Of course what you left out....as Paul Harvey used to say....the rest of the story.

That there never was any scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder when the APA put homosexuality on the DSM- in 1952.

I find it amusing that people like yourself whine about there not being a 'shred of actual science' involved- when there was actually not a shred of actual evidence in 1952 when homosexuality was put on the DSM

The reality of course is that there was actual good science behind the decision to take homosexuality off the DSM- one of the most influential was:

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology

Why was that study important? Because psychologists could not detect any difference in mental health between straight and gay people.

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for 20 years- from 1952 to 1973- without any 'scientific' evidence.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM over 40 years ago- and you still want to consider it a mental illness.

Based on what?

Apparently nothing more than you think it is 'icky'

Oh and you ask which mental health experts? Every professional mental health association in the Western world disagrees with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Fascinating how you object to States rights.

He said nothing of the sort.

Does the State of Colorado have the right to regulate business within its state?

Or should the Federal Court tell a State that it can't?

Yep- a State's right issue.

I agree with you for once, the only point of contention is the feds usurp certain biddness rights in states. This is not arguable.... You know this is true.

'biddness'?

I certainly won't try to argue with you when I don't even know what you are claiming is being 'ursurped'.

 

[Picaro]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

It's not about the cake, it's about ******'s pushing their psychosis on everyone.

Nope. There is nothing in this simple business transaction that forces the hate group to agree with or behave like sane human beings who are celebrating their love and committment.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Sounds like your calling gays a hate group, bout time you see their true colors.

the entire 'movement' has never been anything but a hate speech and harassment campaign. They used the grossly misplaced Pity Party for their self-inflicted AIDS epidiemic as a pretext, never mind they continued to infect and kill each other in massive numbers after it was well known what their problem was: mindless self-indulgence by mentally ill sociopaths completely unconcerned about the consequences of their 'lifestyle'.

 

[Nosmo King]

The big difference between kosher and haall restaurants is the menu. Kosher and halaal dishes are served. In the bakeries, wedding cakes are on the menu.

you really are retarded, or you are just not getting it. Halal and kosher BUTCHERING practices, not the food itself.

Can a Dept of health ban kosher or halal slaughter or not? what about a building department?

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

 

[jasonnfree]

I think this cake issue is kind of similar to the lunch counter issues in the south back in the day. Whites wouldn't serve Blacks, but they eventually lost since the full force of the feds forced them to. Myself, I wouldn't want to eat anything that a food preparar had to make for me against his will. He might spit in it, or worse.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Again, can the government ban Kosher or halal slaughter or not?

You keep not answering the question.

Your question should be: should the government regulate or punish the killing of animals. Of course they can, and I believe they should. Do you support pouching? Hunting deer at night with a light? Taking as many fish as possible, or would you abide by size and limit rules?

The crazy right wing is simple, as in simple minded, characterized by a lack of keen mental discernment and pragmatic judgments. They see a world of black and white, not colorful with different shades and hues.

Anyone who wants to see the world without colorful shades and hues has an absulute right to see the world anyway they wish. No one is taking any of your rights away.

No one is telling gays that they may not have a wedding cake. They need only find a willing contractual partner.

If the government can force someone into being an unwilling partner does the government see any limits on its power?

Government here has limits, or they did until Nov. 2016 when Ben Franklin's warning was not heeded (i.e. "you have a republic, if you can keep it"); these limits, checks and balances have been slowly dissolved by the two citizens united decisions, McConnell's failure to do his duty and Ryan's insistence in his ideology becoming the law of our land.

 

[Moonglow]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

How does a cake become gay?

 

[JoeMoma]

you really are retarded, or you are just not getting it. Halal and kosher BUTCHERING practices, not the food itself.

Can a Dept of health ban kosher or halal slaughter or not? what about a building department?

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

 

[RodISHI]

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The Nazi's started the same shit closing down small Jewish business with bullshit like this. It is fascism plain and simple when they attempt to overtop another persons beliefs or principals. The only ones that gain are the corporations when all the small businesses are gone.

 

[Nosmo King]

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.