Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[Ray From Cleveland]

You treat black people and women, or any minority the same way. If they don't share your political ideals, they must not be who they say they are.

"You are not really black unless you vote for me!"
Joe Biden

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a liberal, I have a lot of respect for you, your beliefs, and your struggle to find a just and fair balance. No monsters.

Thank you Coyote, I needed that. I really did.

 

[Seawytch]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?

Does it have to ruin anybody's life in order for them to be against something? That is real liberal thought right there.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.

Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?

No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issue. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DYI decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.

Easy, right?

{Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.

Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable. I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

I'll go beyond that.

There is not so much as a single word written into the Constitution, that was written by any person who would have ever considered it reasonable to suppose that a sick homosexual mockery of marriage should be considered or treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage. Not a single word written by anyone who wouldn't have found the very idea to be outrageous and unthinkable.

 

[Seawytch]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.

Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable. I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.

They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

{Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.

Nobody objected to the couples. They objected into being involved in their ceremonies. None of these cases ever discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation, they objected to participation into the celebration of their relationship.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.

So what?

All instances of basic decency, common sense, and sanity, sound like “right wing bullshit” to those of you on the left wrong.

That is absolutely no reason at all why we sane, decent people ought to give any consideration at all to the insane, immoral, and nonsensical crap that you have been forcing, and wish to force, into our system of law and government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.

Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?

No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issues. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DYI decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.

Easy, right?

{Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.

Okay then. So just make the cake. If that is indeed the issue that continually plays out in situations like these.

Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?

Whereas, most gays I know don't want to make an issue out of the religious beliefs of someone who is making their cake or other wedding related items. They just want to take the next step in their relationship. Those who do make an issue out of it are being vindictive with no concern for furthering equal treatment among them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.

It is states and localities that try to enact and enforce laws which blatantly violate the Constitution which are acting illegally, not those decent, law-abiding citizens who refuse to comply with these illegal acts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've only been out for a couple of years, if I sound like I don't know anything about it, it's because I truly don't.

 

[Seawytch]

{Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.

Nobody objected to the couples. They objected into being involved in their ceremonies. None of these cases ever discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation, they objected to participation into the celebration of their relationship.

They are in the business of selling wedding cakes.

Should people that object to an interracial couple be able to refuse to "celebrate their relationship" and refuse to bake them a cake?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But see, that is where your example is wrong.

The baker only needs to provide a birthday cake of the sort of designs he would provide normally. He can’t be forced to make special products he does not ordinarily provide. Likewise, a Baker who makes wedding cakes can’t be forced to create, say, a pornographic wedding cake, if he does not ordinarily do so, but he can’t discriminate on who he will serve based on their sexual orientation.

In the cases I read of, those bakers didn't refuse to make their cake, they refused to do the artistic inscribing on them. They had the option of buying the cake and inscribing it themselves, or have somebody more artistic to do it. Man and Man or woman and woman figures can probably be bought on Amazon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.

Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable. I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.

They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.

Question, do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?

Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it

OR

Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are in the business of selling wedding cakes.

Should people that object to an interracial couple be able to refuse to "celebrate their relationship" and refuse to bake them a cake?

No because I don't know of any religion that considers interracial marriages a abomination to their God.

 

[Seawytch]

Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?

Historically, yes.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.

argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] ​

 

[Seawytch]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.

Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable. I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.

They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.

Question, do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?

Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it

OR

Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?

None of the couples did that either. Maybe you should read up on the cases...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?

Historically, yes.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.

argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] ​

We're not talking about race, Seawytch.