Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute

[martybegan]

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

Which does not change the fact that people saw black people as sinful. Which takes me back to my original statement...try denying that wedding cake to an interracial couple. Oh right, you can't. Why? Federal PA laws.

Has anyone actually been punished under FEDERAL PA laws for exactly that?

I don't know. How does that matter? We know that blacks (and Christians) have successfully sued under PA and Employee protection laws and won. We know that FEDERAL law prohibits such discrimination and we know that is the law ya'll should be going after, not these local and state laws.

Of course, you're swimming against the stream. It's much more likely gays will get added to Title II than you to get rid of it, but I support your "efforts".

Federal law narrowly defines public accommodations, not the "every time money changes hands" definition States use.

 

[martybegan]

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

No Marty, that's not a difference. Historians and theologians can point quite clearly to where the bible was interpreted to see blacks as being sinful. It was all the way up until the 70s that the Mormon Church continued their "mark of Cain" bullshit so you can't even play the "dark ages" card.

They run 100% counter to your bullshit argument which is why you are so willing to dismiss them. You think the anti gay bigot should be able to discriminate but the racist one not. Probably because you're an anti gay bigot, but at least you're not a racist. Bully for you.

I am an bully bigot, and your side is currently the bullies. Worse, you don't even have the balls to do it yourself, you run to government like spoiled little children because people don't approve of your lifestyle.

If that makes you feel better about supporting PA laws that protect race, but not ones that protect sexual orientation, call yourself whatever you want.

Ones that protect everyone are useful, but only when used for actual PA's, again not the "every time money changes hands" definition you want you use.

 

[martybegan]

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.

Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.

Surprising, I know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only holding one out publicly as providing a service (not the exchange of money) is the key.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.

Surprising, I know.

The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.

Your strawman is noted, and rejected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No strawman deflection, podjo: my point blew up your religious morality nonsense.

Imams, Rabbis, Priests get to influence the law when they vote.

They can have opinions, just like you and me.

 

[martybegan]

No strawman deflection, podjo: my point blew up your religious morality nonsense.

Imams, Rabbis, Priests get to influence the law when they vote.

They can have opinions, just like you and me.

Yes, strawman deflection. The argument isn't about religion being forced on others, its about participation being forced on people who don't want to participate, be it commerce, celebration, or whatever.

The State has to have a compelling interest to override every persons right to associate with who they want to, work for who they want to, or serve who they want to before it can force people to comply or else.

Widespread jim Crow discrimination is a compelling interest, a gay couple having to find another baker is not.

 

[martybegan]

Only holding one out publicly as providing a service (not the exchange of money) is the key.

PA's were never meant to cover every form of commerce, it has been extended to such things by progressive busybodies such as yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The strawmen are yours, Marty: for instance, "The argument isn't about religion being forced on others, its about participation being forced on people who don't want to participate, be it commerce, celebration, or whatever." Or "every form of commerce."

Your words have you on the run again away from them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.

Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.

What "consensus" would you be referring to?

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Derideo_Te]

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.

Surprising, I know.

The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.

Your strawman is noted, and rejected.

A majority now support gay marriage.

 

[martybegan]

The strawmen are yours, Marty: for instance, "The argument isn't about religion being forced on others, its about participation being forced on people who don't want to participate, be it commerce, celebration, or whatever." Or "every form of commerce."

Your words have you on the run again away from them.

Again with the lazy quoting. Fix it.

 

[martybegan]

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.

Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.

What "consensus" would you be referring to?

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.

Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.

Surprising, I know.

The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.

Your strawman is noted, and rejected.

A majority now support gay marriage.

And the views of the minority should be protected, or is that only for things you agree with?

 

[easyt65]

The Constitution grants the Freedom of Religion ... and the 'practice thereof...'. Refusing to engage in activities that are contradictory to one's religion IS 'practicing one's religion'. PRACTICING one's religion is adhering to one's faith and abiding by the practicies of that faith...which, again, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. That would mean this 'accomodation law' is Un-Constitutional because it seeks to force Christians to abandon their religious beliefs and engage in acts that violate the PRACTICING of that religion.
- This is Liberal 'War on Christianity'

Would the U.S. Government force a Muslim Bakery to make a cake that declares, "Jesus Christ is Lord", 'There is no other God that God / Jesus Christ", or "Mohammad was a Poser - Jesus is lord"? Would the government force a Muslim Bakery to bake a same-sex wedding cake with some tuxedo-clad mini-male statue holding hands with Mohammad? Would the government force a Muslim-owned resteraunt serve bacon? Ummmm, NO!

*** It should be noted that one gay/lesbian group came out (at the time this story hit and when the Bakery was told they were going to be fined/punished for refusing to make the cake) and HAMMERED the same-sex couple and any same-sex group that supported this whole attack on the bakery. They declared that people like this is why same-sex couples get so much grief from everyone else, that this bakery was NOT the only bakers that could make their cake, but they politically targeted this baker to make an example of them and to FORCE them to comply. This group said they should have just accepted their decision and gone elsewhere. (Humerously, a member f this group actually asked aloud the question of whether this couple REALLY wanted to eat a cake this bakery may have been FORCED to make for them? "Good luck with that", he said. ROFLOL! No kidding!)

 

[Skylar]

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.

Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.

What "consensus" would you be referring to?

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.

Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?

Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution grants the Freedom of Religion ... and the 'practice thereof...'. Refusing to engage in activities that are contradictory to one's religion IS 'practicing one's religion'. PRACTICING one's religion is adhering to one's faith and abiding by the practicies of that faith...which, again, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. That would mean this 'accomodation law' is Un-Constitutional because it seeks to force Christians to abandon their religious beliefs and engage in acts that violate the PRACTICING of that religion.
- This is Liberal 'War on Christianity'

Okay, lets follow that logic. If any religious belief in the positive or negative invalidated civil law.....does this only work for Christians?

Would Muslims have the same authority to ignore any law that didn't conform with Sharia?

 

[BULLDOG]

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

Yes you have been misinformed. Even if the District Court and the Appeals Court agree, the loser in the case can still appeal constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. Now say the Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit rules one way on a District Court case under their jurisdiction and the 11th Circuit court rules another on the same issue under their jurisdiction. Then it makes it more likely the Supreme Court will accept an appeal - but they are still not required to.


>>>>

I'm not sure there is a constitutional question that hasn't already been addressed, but thanks for the answer.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.

Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.

What "consensus" would you be referring to?

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.

Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?

Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?

That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.