Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

[Silhouette]

According to Obergefell it already is.

Except Mistresses can't go into probate court and argue for half his stuff.

I think we are both right. You because that’s how it will boil down. Two gay guys walk in & want a dozen cupcakes with no identifying purpose of ritual celebration. Just to eat. Sale made. Same two gay guys walk in the next day & want baker to make a gay wedding cake. No sale.

My points are more about how the court’s rationale will likely flow before your focus is eventually settled on.

So again, by that logic, I can deny services to Mormons because i think Mormons are a cult started by a con man. I can deny services to Jews because they reject Jesus. I can deny services to blacks because according to my religion, they were cursed by God with Dark skin when Ham saw Noah naked.

You see how fucked up things can get when you try to use religion to set aside protections?

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

There’s no ritual, ideal or behavior being celebrated. Heat is like food: a basic necessity. Christ would not deny sinners food. In that situation for purposes of believability you should’ve used a Muslim. He would likely not only not fix their heater, he might, if radical, throw them out their 5 story window.

And, unless the two men were fondling each other, there’s no way of advertising to the repair person if they aren’t just roomies.

 

[JoeB131]

There’s no ritual, ideal or behavior being celebrated. Heat is like food: a basic necessity. Christ would not deny sinners food. In that situation for purposes of believability you should’ve used a Muslim. He would likely not only not fix their heater, he might, if radical, throw them out their 5 story window.

Again, gays suffer more from Christian Homophobes in this country than Muslim ones.

The behavior is they are living together in a house where they will be having that icky, icky butt sex you think about all the time. Clearly making it warm in that house means they will get back to that immoral behavior. Jesus told me not to fix your furnance! Praise Jesus.

see how quickly this can get fucked up?

And, unless the two men were fondling each other, there’s no way of advertising to the repair person if they aren’t just roomies.

Really? I recently did some work for some gay folks, and they didn't fondle each other once... Yet oddly, I knew they weren't roomies.

He did introduce his partner as his 'Husband", that was a dead giveaway. But no fondling.

 

[Silhouette]

There’s no ritual, ideal or behavior being celebrated. Heat is like food: a basic necessity. Christ would not deny sinners food. In that situation for purposes of believability you should’ve used a Muslim. He would likely not only not fix their heater, he might, if radical, throw them out their 5 story window.

Again, gays suffer more from Christian Homophobes in this country than Muslim ones.

The behavior is they are living together in a house where they will be having that icky, icky butt sex you think about all the time. Clearly making it warm in that house means they will get back to that immoral behavior. Jesus told me not to fix your furnance! Praise Jesus.

see how quickly this can get fucked up?

And, unless the two men were fondling each other, there’s no way of advertising to the repair person if they aren’t just roomies.

Really? I recently did some work for some gay folks, and they didn't fondle each other once... Yet oddly, I knew they weren't roomies.

He did introduce his partner as his 'Husband", that was a dead giveaway. But no fondling.

So he informed. This will be pivotal in the Ruling.

 

[hadit]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

Already answered in the post. Read it again.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

Already answered in the post. Read it again.

Joe wants to pretend like Justices aren’t sophisticated enough to understand “love the sinner, hate the sin”. You feed the sinner, you keep him warm & tend his basic needs. But you do not promote his sin. If he asks you to participate in his behaviors, rituals or ideals around the sin, you say no. If he asks you to sell him a sandwich because he’s hungry, you say yes.

 

[Slyhunter]

According to Obergefell it already is.

Except Mistresses can't go into probate court and argue for half his stuff.

I think we are both right. You because that’s how it will boil down. Two gay guys walk in & want a dozen cupcakes with no identifying purpose of ritual celebration. Just to eat. Sale made. Same two gay guys walk in the next day & want baker to make a gay wedding cake. No sale.

My points are more about how the court’s rationale will likely flow before your focus is eventually settled on.

So again, by that logic, I can deny services to Mormons because i think Mormons are a cult started by a con man. I can deny services to Jews because they reject Jesus. I can deny services to blacks because according to my religion, they were cursed by God with Dark skin when Ham saw Noah naked.

You see how fucked up things can get when you try to use religion to set aside protections?

You can I won't I like making money. I don't have a problem if you're too stupid to try to do business and limit your customer base for whatever reason. You should be free to be stupid.

 

[Slyhunter]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

Baker doesn't refuse to sell a cake just refuses to decorate it gayly. The christian repair tech would provide the furnace but he wouldn't paint it pink.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. It’s your being informed of a ritual, behavior or ideal being celebrated instead of just feeding a hungry person some of the basic stuff you bake.

Again, you guys can try to slice it any way you like, but at the end of the day, if you say that religion protects bigotry, you open the doors to all sorts of nonsense.

Let's put it another way. It's dead of winter, and a gay couple's heat goes out. The "Christian" repair tech gets there and decides he doesn't want to endorse an immoral lifestyle by fixing the furnace.

Justified or not?

Baker doesn't refuse to sell a cake just refuses to decorate it gayly. The christian repair tech would provide the furnace but he wouldn't paint it pink.

I don’t know how Islam works but that would be the Christian remedy. Serve the sinner but not his sin.

 

[JoeB131]

So he informed. This will be pivotal in the Ruling.

No, guy, the Courts aren't going to open that can of worms... otherwise EVERY bigotry becomes a "sincere religious belief".

 

[Silhouette]

So he informed. This will be pivotal in the Ruling.

No, guy, the Courts aren't going to open that can of worms... otherwise EVERY bigotry becomes a "sincere religious belief".

That can of worms is exactly what the Court is being asked to open and will open in this lawsuit. Every case is a can of worms that comes to them. Hence the reason they weren't resolved in the lower courts. Hence the reason they're "the Superiors"...ie: superior reasoning powers. At least when they're not blatant activists... (RGB)

 

[JoeB131]

That can of worms is exactly what the Court is being asked to open and will open in this lawsuit. Every case is a can of worms that comes to them. Hence the reason they weren't resolved in the lower courts. Hence the reason they're "the Superiors"...ie: superior reasoning powers. At least when they're not blatant activists... (RGB)

Except once you say, "It's okay to discriminate against gays if you sincerely believe your religion calls for it", you can discriminate against Blacks, Jews, Mormons, ladies wearing pants, handicapped people, or just about anyone else you like. There's enough loony in the bible to support anything, really... and why limit ourselves to the bible.

 

[hadit]

That can of worms is exactly what the Court is being asked to open and will open in this lawsuit. Every case is a can of worms that comes to them. Hence the reason they weren't resolved in the lower courts. Hence the reason they're "the Superiors"...ie: superior reasoning powers. At least when they're not blatant activists... (RGB)

Except once you say, "It's okay to discriminate against gays if you sincerely believe your religion calls for it", you can discriminate against Blacks, Jews, Mormons, ladies wearing pants, handicapped people, or just about anyone else you like. There's enough loony in the bible to support anything, really... and why limit ourselves to the bible.

Here's where liberals tend to lump everything into a box and label it "bad". A baker that refuses to take part in a gay wedding is not discriminating against gay people, he's discriminating against the wedding. Note that a gay man can come in and buy cupcakes. He can order a birthday cake. He can order a fourth of July party cake. He just can't force the baker to celebrate a "wedding".

Do liberals not understand nuance?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's where liberals tend to lump everything into a box and label it "bad". A baker that refuses to take part in a gay wedding is not discriminating against gay people, he's discriminating against the wedding. Note that a gay man can come in and buy cupcakes. He can order a birthday cake. He can order a fourth of July party cake. He just can't force the baker to celebrate a "wedding".

Do liberals not understand nuance?

They do. They just pay guys like Joe to pretend it’s “an unworkable can of worms!”

A ritual, behavior or ideal shall not be compulsory to play along with. Innate traits like race or gender shall be served. Unless of course the customer is unruly. In that case it’s equality for all to be 86’d.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's where liberals tend to lump everything into a box and label it "bad". A baker that refuses to take part in a gay wedding is not discriminating against gay people, he's discriminating against the wedding. Note that a gay man can come in and buy cupcakes. He can order a birthday cake. He can order a fourth of July party cake. He just can't force the baker to celebrate a "wedding".

Do liberals not understand nuance?

It's not a matter of nuance. It's a matter of wanting to treat someone like a second class citizen because you don't like the kind of sex they are having.

He's not "taking part". He delivers the cake, he goes home. Period.

 

[JoeB131]

They do. They just pay guys like Joe to pretend it’s “an unworkable can of worms!”

A ritual, behavior or ideal shall not be compulsory to play along with. Innate traits like race or gender shall be served. Unless of course the customer is unruly. In that case it’s equality for all to be 86’d.

I want to find out where the "Cake" is mentioned in the Christian Ritual.

Where is it in the Bible?

In fact, Wedding cakes are a Roman Tradition that carried over. (Thankfully, they don't bake them in the shape of sex organs anymore like the Romans did.)

But the minute you say "I can refuse to bake a cake for gay people", you'd said, "I can refuse to serve Mormons because they were started as a pedophilic cult!"

 

[Conservative65]

They do. They just pay guys like Joe to pretend it’s “an unworkable can of worms!”

A ritual, behavior or ideal shall not be compulsory to play along with. Innate traits like race or gender shall be served. Unless of course the customer is unruly. In that case it’s equality for all to be 86’d.

I want to find out where the "Cake" is mentioned in the Christian Ritual.

Where is it in the Bible?

In fact, Wedding cakes are a Roman Tradition that carried over. (Thankfully, they don't bake them in the shape of sex organs anymore like the Romans did.)

But the minute you say "I can refuse to bake a cake for gay people", you'd said, "I can refuse to serve Mormons because they were started as a pedophilic cult!"

Businesses should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Why do you think someone has to serve you because you want it? Why do you think someone should serve a fag like you?

 

[JoeB131]

Businesses should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Why do you think someone has to serve you because you want it? Why do you think someone should serve a fag like you?

Sorry, dude, I'm straight.

And I think that businesses should serve anyone who has the money to pay for their services... it would be dumb not to.

We've been over this. We have public accommedation laws and most folks think they are a good idea.

 

[Conservative65]

Businesses should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Why do you think someone has to serve you because you want it? Why do you think someone should serve a fag like you?

Sorry, dude, I'm straight.

And I think that businesses should serve anyone who has the money to pay for their services... it would be dumb not to.

We've been over this. We have public accommedation laws and most folks think they are a good idea.

That's what you keep telling people. Anyone that claims he's an adult yet constantly calls other people "dude" can't be trusted.

No one said it would be a good economic/business decision to do that. However, it's still a choice that owners should have. I thought you lefties believed in choice. You claim you do. I guess that only applies to things you support.

You've claimed a lot of things. You claim you're not a homo but you keep proving it daily. Maybe that's why you oppose such decisions. You and your husband to be are looking for a cake for your "wedding".