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

[Seawytch]

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.

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

 

[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?

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

The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.

 

[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] ​

We're not talking about race, Seawytch.

It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.

 

[Dr Grump]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution

And?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

 

[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.

It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.

No, because I see it as a deviation from the topic. Whereas you say I won't address your racial argument, you won't address my religious one.

Stop playing games with me.

 

[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...

The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.

You obviously didn't read them. You have heard of testimony? Findings of fact?

Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Seawytch]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

God once opposed interracial marriage, too

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.

www.post-gazette.com

 

[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?

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

The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.

You obviously didn't read them. You have heard of testimony? Findings of fact?

Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Findings of fact, yes, those are facts of the matter, not facts stating the exact motivations of the plaintiff.

...

This is getting rather tedious.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

God once opposed interracial marriage, too

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.

www.post-gazette.com

So, for starters, the author of that article, nor the delegates at the UMC conference it referred to cite any scripture. Perhaps you could do what they didn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

God once opposed interracial marriage, too

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.

www.post-gazette.com

So you had to go back over 60 years to find one case of one church (not religion itself) to make your point?

 

[Faun]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

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

You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.

You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.

Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.

Nonsense. If gay marriage is against your religion, don't enter a gay marriage. Problem solved.

 

[Faun]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.

Aren't they out of business?

 

[Seawytch]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

God once opposed interracial marriage, too

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.

www.post-gazette.com

So, for starters, the author of that article, nor the delegates at the UMC conference it referred to cite any scripture. Perhaps you could do what they didn't.

Scripture isn’t required for a deeply held religious belief, but they have that too.
Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 are most often used.

 

[Seawytch]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

God once opposed interracial marriage, too

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.

www.post-gazette.com

So you had to go back over 60 years to find one case of one church (not religion itself) to make your point?

God was cited as a reason against interracial marriage...by a judge.

 

[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] ​

We're not talking about race, Seawytch.

It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.

No, because I see it as a deviation from the topic. Whereas you say I won't address your racial argument, you won't address my religious one.

Stop playing games with me.

I did address your religious “argument”. I said that they should not be able to discriminate against me as long as I am prohibited, by law, from discriminating against them. I said they should not be able to discriminate against me if they cannot discriminate against an interracial couple. It’s quite simple.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

Yup...you see..the majority want it....and as the geezers die off and the Religious nutz diminish in both numbers and influence--that majority will only grow.

The Constitution is a living document..and judicial activism is an important part of evolving as a nation.

SCOTUS disagrees/ Well..maybe we get 6 more Justices..and fix that!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.

They do? I was born into a Catholic family. I went to a Catholic church. I even served as an altar boy in that church. Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.

Of course..if you want to marry a non-Catholic--there's an issue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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!

But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution. You should read the majority opinion. For that matter read the constitution.

And speaking of what is and is not in the constitution, the right to discriminat against others- to dictate how others can live and who they can love based on YOUR religious beliefs is not to be found. What you are told by the government that you must get gay married or have gay sex, then and only then will you have something to bitch about,.

 

[progressive hunter]

But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution. You should read the majority opinion. For that matter read the constitution.

And speaking of what is and is not in the constitution, the right to discriminat against others- to dictate how others can live and who they can love based on YOUR religious beliefs is not to be found. What you are told by the government that you must get gay married or have gay sex, then and only then will you have something to bitch about,.

the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,

as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,