You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The gay couple has a multitude of baker options

In a small town there might not be that many. If, for example, Pizza Hut refuses to serve then sucks to be the gay people when the only other pizza joints in that town is Domino's and Papa John which they don't like.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Odd that you chime in on what you consider to be such a trivial matter, eh?

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The gay couple has a multitude of baker options

In a small town there might not be that many. If, for example, Pizza Hut refuses to serve then sucks to be the gay people when the only other pizza joints in that town is Domino's and Papa John which they don't like.

It always comes back to the small towns, doesn't it? It's almost like there aren't things called phones, vehicles or the internet.

Also, there is no faith I am aware of that says you will not serve standard meals to sinners, and serving a standard meal is not a participation in their choice to live in sin.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Odd that you chime in on what you consider to be such a trivial matter, eh?

Welcome to the internet where everyone has an opinion.

The gay couple's 'dilemma' was trivial.

The baker's dilemma was serious.

a reply to: RowanBean

One can see that the calls for "reasonability" all go one way. Why can't the gay couple go somewhere else?

Why should they? This is America. The baker is in business to make cakes. The baker decided to refuse to make a cake because of their sexual orientation in a State in which that is illegal. The baker knew this, so, at best, we have two groups of people here who were willing to serve as patsies in what is being termed as a "culture war."

The "poor baker" made his choice to break the law. If he can't do the time, he shouldn't do the crime, right? Isn't that what some of these folks would be chanting if the situation were a bit different?

The gay couple in this case tried to make a statement for a political cause, as did the baker. SCOTUS' ruling is fair and balanced.

However, there are forces in this country that are so dead-set on winning the alleged "culture war" that the goal of subverting the rule-of-law for religious "belief" won't stop until the America we know is destroyed. In the end, if the side favoring theocracy wins, we can be ready to see in short order faith against faith and sect against sect because in the blind diametric fallacy of "one true way" ... all religions are their own worst enemies.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Odd that you chime in on what you consider to be such a trivial matter, eh?

Welcome to the internet where everyone has an opinion.

The gay couple's 'dilemma' was trivial.

The baker's dilemma was serious.

In your opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Odd that you chime in on what you consider to be such a trivial matter, eh?

Welcome to the internet where everyone has an opinion.

The gay couple's 'dilemma' was trivial.

The baker's dilemma was serious.

In your opinion.

Did I not say everyone had one?

a reply to: Edumakated

If the Left wants to Continue with their Hard Ball Whining about ever aspect of American Society they happen to Disagree with , then they should be Ready for the Consequences..........

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RowanBean

One can see that the calls for "reasonability" all go one way. Why can't the gay couple go somewhere else?

Why should they? This is America. The baker is in business to make cakes. The baker decided to refuse to make a cake because of their sexual orientation in a State in which that is illegal. The baker knew this, so, at best, we have two groups of people here who were willing to serve as patsies in what is being termed as a "culture war."

The "poor baker" made his choice to break the law. If he can't do the time, he shouldn't do the crime, right? Isn't that what some of these folks would be chanting if the situation were a bit different?

The gay couple in this case tried to make a statement for a political cause, as did the baker. SCOTUS' ruling is fair and balanced.

However, there are forces in this country that are so dead-set on winning the alleged "culture war" that the goal of subverting the rule-of-law for religious "belief" won't stop until the America we know is destroyed. In the end, if the side favoring theocracy wins, we can be ready to see in short order faith against faith and sect against sect because in the blind diametric fallacy of "one true way" ... all religions are their own worst enemies.

So in your opinion, opening a business makes you an indentured servant to anyone who enters your establishment? You have zero discretion in how you manage your affairs?

And if your business does not offer the service that the customer desires, you are expected to stop everything and change your business plan and policies?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Odd that you chime in on what you consider to be such a trivial matter, eh?

Welcome to the internet where everyone has an opinion.

The gay couple's 'dilemma' was trivial.

The baker's dilemma was serious.

In your opinion.

Did I not say everyone had one?

Indeed. I prefer facts to opinions. Opinions are subjective. The fact of this discussion is that the baker's act was illegal in Colorado, that's not even a question. Colorado has a mandate to continue to protect the civil rights of all, both of religious belief and of equality before the laws. I said quite some time ago this is an excellent ruling for civil rights.

/shrug

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You know I'm not going to play hang the strawman with you Teiki. I'll merely stop responding to continued fallacies.

My opinion is that opening a business makes one subject to the same laws that we are all subject to.

Next.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It always comes back to the small towns, doesn't it? It's almost like there aren't things called phones, vehicles or the internet.

You'd be surprised. Go visit WV sometimes.

Also, there is no faith I am aware of that says you will not serve standard meals to sinners, and serving a standard meal is not a participation in their choice to live in sin.

Did you just admit that the baker was in the wrong?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Edumakated

If the Left wants to Continue with their Hard Ball Whining about ever aspect of American Society they happen to Disagree with , then they should be Ready for the Consequences..........

Oh yeah I'm sure that Christian baker would spit in the cake just like Jesus would.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It seems to me that there are plenty of posts, like yours for example, that are whining about folks just accepting that they're second-class citizens and moving on, right?

It has nothing to do with this imaginary "right and left" that so many prattle on about. Is the rule-of-law going to be our highest good or is religion?

The answer is we don't have to choose. No one made the baker open a business in a state in which gays have the same rights as the rest of America.

He needs to get over his irrational squeamishness, right? God is no respecter of persons, and makes it rain on the just and unjust, right?

If God can make it rain for everyone, shouldn't one of his special children be willing to make cakes for everyone?

a reply to: RowanBean

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matthew 5:43-46

a reply to: Gryphon66

How is Forcing a Man of Faith through Unjust Laws to do the bidding of another that is contrary to the Tenets of his Faith protecting the Civil Rights of All ? It is Not . The Law itself Violates His Civil Rights . A FACT .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

How is Forcing a Man of Faith through Unjust Laws to do the bidding of another that is contrary to the Tenets of his Faith protecting the Civil Rights of All ? It is Not . The Law itself Violates His Civil Rights . A FACT .

There is nothing in the tenets of Christianity that forbid one from making cakes. In fact, Christianity requires the opposite.

Love your enemies, etc. etc. If his particular, individual interpretation of his religion requires him to treat some Americans as second-class citizens, then he should find himself another business, eh? Aren't you folks supposed to be all about personal responsibility? Let him live his beliefs!

Either that or do the time for his chosen crime ...

This is America a "person of faith" is no better than anyone else. We all have to obey the laws or pay the price.

And stop whining about it for Christ's sake.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

tribal chieftains and village elders? family patriarchs and dare i say.... matriarchs..
heck the caveman's club and drag approach??
It's not me trying to portray marriage as being strictly in the realm of religion, is it?


and, let's not pretend that this only concerns gays and wedding cakes.
it covers so much more...
from adoption, to birth control coverage, to the healthcare one can expect to receive in hospitals.
once you decide that "participating" can include something like providing health insurance that covers birth control....
it seems to me that you could probably claim you are "participating" if you hire someone who likes to drink a few drinks on the weekend, because well, the money you pay him for his labor is being used to buy the beer.
and, once you decide that religious beliefs should be good reason to allow hospitals to send away miscarrying women, not once, not twice, but three times only to have the women collapse on the floor on the third time...
it seems that anything and everything goes in this area.... who cares about what kind of harm is done as long as people's or should I say businesses and institutions, personal beliefs are protected...

first, like I already stated, businesses that want to preserve their moral conscious should be obligated to alert the public, in their ads and with signs on their place of business what they are not willing to do...

then, the gov't should be obligated to ensure that those who these businesses decide to persecute still have options elsewhere. for example.... if the only hospitals within a hundred miles refuses to do tubal ligations while they are performing the c-section or any other medical procedure... there needs to an alternative hospital in the area that will...

and lastly.... the poor persecuted american christians need to stop whining about how persecuted they are.

www.ncregister.com...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Edumakated

If the Left wants to Continue with their Hard Ball Whining about ever aspect of American Society they happen to Disagree with

Who was the one whining about baking a cake for an aspect of society with which they disagreed?

a reply to: Necrobile

I make posts in haste myself, and come off sounding rather foolish often...you didnt, I may have misunderstood.