If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[buckeye45_73]

He refused to serve them due to their lifestyle.

No, they were not refused service due to their lifestyle. How? Did they have "Husband" and "Husband" tattooed on their foreheads? If they had simply walked in and ordered a dozen Napoleon's, there would never have been an issue.

Their lifestyle includes their marriage.

but people don't have to accommodate that.....they could have bought a cake off the shelf.....but you cant force someone to design one for you.......I cant ask a black person about a cake concerning the history of the democrat party including slaves, burning crosses, the klan, student protests, burning books, and all the rest of their crap......he can rightfully refuse the request........

 

[dblack]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

 

[jc456]

I guess just because you are old does not mean you are necessarily wise.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Doing a little trolling? **** off.

Possibly.

More likely pointing out that you really have no clue as to what "better" means and because you seem to think you do, then you must be a left wing jerkwad.

So you can F**k off you yourself and shove your little commentay.

The law just taught you something different.

"**** their feelings and their dignity." You know better, so don't blame me for reminding you how wrong that is. Call me what you like, it doesn't change that that is wrong. You know it.

no, no it isn't. Freedom of religion cannot be mandated in our country. why does that bother you so?

What's even funnier, is you are ok with forcing someone to do something they don't want to do to accommodate someone else. can't get anymore insane than that.

It's not insane. It is following the law. It is not legal to discriminate against gays. It's time you stopped whining over it.

no one discriminated. you're wrong. how many times must I tell you?

 

[jc456]

If I think being a christian violates my deepest religious beliefs should I be forced to do business with christians?

Now you're getting the question. What do you think, should you?

I'm not sure it is getting at the question. The Sup Ct's holding doesn't have any issue with the notion that if someone doesn't want to buy from a gay baker or a Christian baker ... they don't have to buy.

The Sup Ct DID find that that if one is a Christian baker saying baking the cake forces him into a sin then the State must seek to find some unspecified neutral decision that took into account those beliefs along with the right to be free of biz discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

Involuntary Servitude Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

"Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another."

How can government forcing a business owner to serve people against his will be anything other than involuntary servitude?

No one has forced the baker to be a baker or bake wedding cakes. He chose to do that, in a state with PA laws and then he chose to discriminate against customers based on their lifestyle.

no he didn't. try again. He didn't wish to partake in their wedding due to his religious beliefs. COTUS just told the state they couldn't force him.

He refused to serve them due to their lifestyle.

wrong.

wrong

it had to do with marriage. wow, come on guys get better at this.

 

[edward37]

He refused to serve them due to their lifestyle.

No, they were not refused service due to their lifestyle. How? Did they have "Husband" and "Husband" tattooed on their foreheads? If they had simply walked in and ordered a dozen Napoleon's, there would never have been an issue.

Their lifestyle includes their marriage.

but people don't have to accommodate that.....they could have bought a cake off the shelf.....but you cant force someone to design one for you.......I cant ask a black person about a cake concerning the history of the democrat party including slaves, burning crosses, the klan, student protests, burning books, and all the rest of their crap......he can rightfully refuse the request........

Come on buckie You'd love baking a Klan cake for their birthday

 

[bendog]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

 

[jc456]

He refused to serve them due to their lifestyle.

No, they were not refused service due to their lifestyle. How? Did they have "Husband" and "Husband" tattooed on their foreheads? If they had simply walked in and ordered a dozen Napoleon's, there would never have been an issue.

Their lifestyle includes their marriage.

but people don't have to accommodate that.....they could have bought a cake off the shelf.....but you cant force someone to design one for you.......I cant ask a black person about a cake concerning the history of the democrat party including slaves, burning crosses, the klan, student protests, burning books, and all the rest of their crap......he can rightfully refuse the request........

Come on buckie You'd love baking a Klan cake for their birthday

and you'd be baking the one with the swastika right?

 

[dblack]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

What about barter? What if neither party is technically 'selling', and it's just a trade?

 

[jc456]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

 

[Silhouette]

And the state has the right to not give you a business license.

Not based on your faith they don't. If they did you would OWN their asses. Just like the baker in Colorado will soon own that city. The court said in plain language that they violated his Constitutional rights. The real kind, that are actually delineated and written out in the Constitution; as opposed to judicially-legislated non-existent "rights" so recently "added" invisibly to the Constitution.

 

[edward37]

He refused to serve them due to their lifestyle.

No, they were not refused service due to their lifestyle. How? Did they have "Husband" and "Husband" tattooed on their foreheads? If they had simply walked in and ordered a dozen Napoleon's, there would never have been an issue.

Their lifestyle includes their marriage.

but people don't have to accommodate that.....they could have bought a cake off the shelf.....but you cant force someone to design one for you.......I cant ask a black person about a cake concerning the history of the democrat party including slaves, burning crosses, the klan, student protests, burning books, and all the rest of their crap......he can rightfully refuse the request........

Come on buckie You'd love baking a Klan cake for their birthday

and you'd be baking the one with the swastika right?

Macy's has a big sale on sheets Bring some for your friends

 

[jc456]

No, they were not refused service due to their lifestyle. How? Did they have "Husband" and "Husband" tattooed on their foreheads? If they had simply walked in and ordered a dozen Napoleon's, there would never have been an issue.

Their lifestyle includes their marriage.

but people don't have to accommodate that.....they could have bought a cake off the shelf.....but you cant force someone to design one for you.......I cant ask a black person about a cake concerning the history of the democrat party including slaves, burning crosses, the klan, student protests, burning books, and all the rest of their crap......he can rightfully refuse the request........

Come on buckie You'd love baking a Klan cake for their birthday

and you'd be baking the one with the swastika right?

Macy's has a big sale on sheets Bring some for your friends

want to see your cake bubba, put your swastika up there bubba. you know you can do it, it's what you're about.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. But it doesn't matter. This is part of our system, which is designed to bring order to society. The guy was licensed and expected to observe the relevant laws. Observing relevant laws is what we do here in the U.S. I'm not for anarchy.

Apparently the USSC found that the relevant laws that apply in this case was the baker's 1st Amendment rights. Those rights trumped the lifestyle that the religious baker cannot abide by or he'd have to abdicate his faith.

This decision is important for many reasons, but the best one I can think of is that the Court said that "a man's faith is protected in church, on its steps, down the road and into the market place". When that faith is tested against deviant lifestyles, faith wins. It's a super-victory for people of faith. And a stunning defeat for gay-lifestylists.

 

[bendog]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

The opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.

 

[jc456]

So I can say that the act of doing any business with any Christian is a sin according to my deeply held personal beliefs right?

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

The opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.

It just meant his religious belief wasn't taken into consideration as a neutral reason.

 

[jc456]

Yes. But it doesn't matter. This is part of our system, which is designed to bring order to society. The guy was licensed and expected to observe the relevant laws. Observing relevant laws is what we do here in the U.S. I'm not for anarchy.

Apparently the USSC found that the relevant laws that apply in this case was the baker's 1st Amendment rights. Those rights trumped the lifestyle that the religious baker cannot abide by or he'd have to abdicate his faith.

This decision is important for many reasons, but the best one I can think of is that the Court said that "a man's faith is protected in church, on its steps, down the road and into the market place". When that faith is tested against deviant lifestyles, faith wins. It's a super-victory for people of faith. And a stunning defeat for gay-lifestylists.

not at all. you should read the ruling. you have rather a large ignorance. you should let your ignorance go.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If I think being a christian violates my deepest religious beliefs should I be forced to do business with christians?

Now you're getting the question. What do you think, should you?

I have no problem being denied by businesses. They do it all the time with crappy service and I never go back.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. But it doesn't matter. This is part of our system, which is designed to bring order to society. The guy was licensed and expected to observe the relevant laws. Observing relevant laws is what we do here in the U.S. I'm not for anarchy.

Apparently the USSC found that the relevant laws that apply in this case was the baker's 1st Amendment rights. Those rights trumped the lifestyle that the religious baker cannot abide by or he'd have to abdicate his faith.

This decision is important for many reasons, but the best one I can think of is that the Court said that "a man's faith is protected in church, on its steps, down the road and into the market place". When that faith is tested against deviant lifestyles, faith wins. It's a super-victory for people of faith. And a stunning defeat for gay-lifestylists.

not at all. you should read the ruling. you have rather a large ignorance. you should let your ignorance go.

Read my post 382 on page 39 of the dungeoned thread linked in my signature:

The crux: (page 12 of the Opinion of the Court) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business

****
The court found that 1st Amendment protections of the baker's faith extend to his business life. There it is in red and white.

 

[Lysistrata]

Obviously, I have. It was interesting from an historical perspective.

Then you must have overlooked this part of the Bible. ....

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Consider who wrote it. These were ancient tribal laws from way back thousands of years ago. Read the rest of Leviticus. Read the rest of the Old Testament. There are lots of "sins" in there that specify the death penalty. Look 'em up. I guess cherry-picking is a hobby of yours.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No one has forced the baker to be a baker or bake wedding cakes. He chose to do that, in a state with PA laws and then he chose to discriminate against customers based on their lifestyle.

To force anyone to serve a customer they do not want to serve is un American...when did we decide that the government can tell a private business owner who he must serve? We used to have signs that said we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....now that is Freedom from tyranny....

Dude. Where have you been?