Members banned from this thread: Jeremy


Page 2 of 150 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1496
Thanks Tree523Thanks

Thread: Case of gay couple’s wedding cake heads to Supreme Court

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,852
    Thanks
    6840

    From
    A Month Away
    These lawsuits brought by the more militant LGBT that have no tolerance for others while demanding tolerance for their lifestyle choices have the potential to hurt the entire LGBT community. If the ruling goes in favor of the baker it will set LGBT rights back a decade. Filing lawsuits against bakers, pastors, photographers, and county clerk's that refuse to be a part of this seems like a good idea. No doubt there have been some court wins. But all it takes is one major loss at the Supreme Court to knock those rights backward.

    The LGBT community would be far better served if they were to use tolerance, education, and social pressure to effect this acceptance rather than the courts to compel it. Think about it, Melissa never made that cake. Kim never signed those licenses. Even when faced with bankruptcy, and jail, these believers did not capitulate. Don and Evelyn Knapp still won't marry same sex couples in their wedding chapel. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

    Some feel that they must trample on the rights of others to get their will imposed. I am afraid the LGBT community may see one of these cases not go their way resulting in a major change in this country.
    Thanks from John T Ford, aboutenough and syrenn

  2. #12
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18,666
    Thanks
    14976

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Good, let's hope they can stop the lefts war on Christianity.
    How can the one discriminating be the one discriminated against because they are not allowed to discriminate?

  3. #13
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18,666
    Thanks
    14976

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    These lawsuits brought by the more militant LGBT that have no tolerance for others while demanding tolerance for their lifestyle choices have the potential to hurt the entire LGBT community. If the ruling goes in favor of the baker it will set LGBT rights back a decade. Filing lawsuits against bakers, pastors, photographers, and county clerk's that refuse to be a part of this seems like a good idea. No doubt there have been some court wins. But all it takes is one major loss at the Supreme Court to knock those rights backward.

    The LGBT community would be far better served if they were to use tolerance, education, and social pressure to effect this acceptance rather than the courts to compel it. Think about it, Melissa never made that cake. Kim never signed those licenses. Even when faced with bankruptcy, and jail, these believers did not capitulate. Don and Evelyn Knapp still won't marry same sex couples in their wedding chapel. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

    Some feel that they must trample on the rights of others to get their will imposed. I am afraid the LGBT community may see one of these cases not go their way resulting in a major change in this country.
    I always feel bad for those who discriminate and are not allowed to. The same applies to prisoners. Why should they sit in prison just because they break the laws? Militant victims and courts are imposing on them. Victims always feel that they must trample on the rights of others to get their will imposed.

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,852
    Thanks
    6840

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    How can the one discriminating be the one discriminated against because they are not allowed to discriminate?
    Simple, the religious person feels that he or she is being told they have to put their religion aside to accommodate the lifestyle choices of another. Religious people are believers. Believers are dangerous. The Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" These people believe that their religion prohibits them from being involved with a same sex marriage.

    Rather than taking their money elsewhere, the same sex couples that bring these lawsuits want courts to compel the baker, photographer, pastor, or whatever other service provider to participate. This particular case, the cake maker made several cakes for the couple over the years but would not make the rainbow wedding cake for their ceremony. They did get the cake made elsewhere, actually for free but want this baker to be forced to make cakes for same sex weddings when he says it is against his religion.

    A better course of action, in my opinion would be to take your business elsewhere. This baker would not only lose the money for making the wedding cake but all future business of the couple. They were customers of the baker. They bought several cakes there. Can the baker afford to run off customers? Customers who will tell others that even if not LGBT support the LGBT community? There are other bakers that are happy to bake that cake and make that money.
    Last edited by Southern Dad; 27th June 2017 at 05:42 AM.
    Thanks from Maxwell Edison

  5. #15
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,638
    Thanks
    26720

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post

    FILE - In this March 10, 2014 file photo, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips cracks eggs into a cake batter mixer inside his store in Lakewood, Colo. The Supreme Court is taking on a new clash between gay rights and religion in a case about a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado. The justices said Monday, June 26, 2017, they will consider whether a baker who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (Brennan Linsley, File/Associated Press)

    By Kristen Wyatt | AP June 26 at 5:06 PM
    DENVER — A Colorado clash between gay rights and religion started as an angry Facebook posting about a wedding cake but now has big implications for anti-discrimination laws in 22 states.
    Baker Jack Phillips is challenging a Colorado law that says he was wrong to have turned away a same-sex couple who wanted a cake to celebrate their 2012 wedding.
    The justices said Monday they will consider Phillips’ case, which could affect all states. Twenty-two states include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws that bar discrimination in public accommodations.
    Phillips argues that he turned away Charlie Craig and David Mullins not because they are gay, but because their wedding violated Phillips’ religious belief.
    After the couple was turned away in 2012, they complained about Masterpiece Cakeshop on Facebook, then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state sided with the couple.

    “It solidified the right of our community to have a right to public accommodations, so future couples are not turned away from a business because of who they are,” Mullins said Monday.
    Phillips says that artisans cannot be compelled to produce works celebrating an event that violates the artist’s religion. A lawyer for Phillips pointed out that another Denver-area baker was not fined for declining to bake a cake with an anti-gay message.
    “The government in Colorado is picking and choosing which messages they’ll support and which artistic messages they’ll protect,” said Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which took the baker’s case.
    The decision to take on the case reflects renewed energy among the high court’s conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
    The Colorado case could settle challenges from at least a half-dozen other artists in the wedding industry who are challenging laws in other states requiring them to produce work for same-sex ceremonies.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.02f925e8ac05

    This is an important case being ruled on by the Supreme Court. There has been many cases where owners of Christian businesses were fined and or sued for refusing to serve Gay weddings. A ruling from the Supreme Court could change the issue where a Christian owned business has the right to refuse business if it goes against their beliefs. The courts have accepted some beliefs and denied others, so the SC is going to rule on what beliefs are acceptable or if religious beliefs equal discrimination. Its been a hot issue that needs to be settled.
    Don't be surprised or disappointed when the Court rules against the baker.

    You frame the case as a baker seeking his religious right to refuse service. The case the Court will hear is whether states have the right to set LGBT persons as a protected class.

    The business owner does not have the right to refuse service to any Federally recognized protected class...even if the owner has a religious objection. That is current federal law.

    22 States have included LGBT folk onto their list of protected classes in their state's anti-discrimination laws. The question is...Does a state have that right.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  6. #16
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,638
    Thanks
    26720

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    Simple, the religious person feels that he or she is being told they have to put their religion aside to accommodate the lifestyle choices of another. Religious people are believers. Believers are dangerous. The Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" These people believe that their religion prohibits them from being involved with a same sex marriage.

    Rather than taking their money elsewhere, the same sex couples that bring these lawsuits want courts to compel the baker, photographer, pastor, or whatever other service provider to participate. This particular case, the cake maker made several cakes for the couple over the years but would not make the rainbow wedding cake for their ceremony. They did get the cake made elsewhere, actually for free but want this baker to be forced to make cakes for same sex weddings when he says it is against his religion.

    A better course of action, in my opinion would be to take your business elsewhere. This baker would not only lose the money for making the wedding cake but all future business of the couple. They were customers of the baker. They bought several cakes there. Can the baker afford to run off customers? Customers who will tell others that even if not LGBT support the LGBT community? There are other bakers that are happy to bake that cake and make that money.
    At one point in this nation's history, religious people believed it was against their religious teachings that the races mix.

    Most religious people have moved past that belief... but it took a Supreme Court ruling to set the record straight. Religious people can still believe that the races should not mix...and some still do.

    The Supreme Court's ruling did not force religious people to believe otherwise...it just made any law forcing separation unlawful.

    Religious people can and will still be able to believe that SSM is against their religious teachings...they just will not be able to defy Federal or State law protections for protected classes.

    It has already been settled, religious peoples are entitled to believe as they wish...they are just not able to put those believes into practice in every circumstance.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 27th June 2017 at 05:53 AM.
    Thanks from Dragonfly5 and Ian Jeffrey

  7. #17
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,852
    Thanks
    6840

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Don't be surprised or disappointed when the Court rules against the baker.

    You frame the case as a baker seeking his religious right to refuse service. The case the Court will hear is whether states have the right to set LGBT persons as a protected class.

    The business owner does not have the right to refuse service to any Federally recognized protected class...even if the owner has a religious objection. That is current federal law.

    22 States have included LGBT folk onto their list of protected classes in their state's anti-discrimination laws. The question is...Does a state have that right.
    The baker did not refuse service to these customers. He had made them cakes in the past. He refused to make a rainbow wedding cake for a same sex marriage saying that it was compromising his religious values. The same sex couple, customers of his, felt that their rights as LGBT trumped his religious rights and demanded that he make the cake. Then sued him over it.

  8. #18
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,852
    Thanks
    6840

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    At one point in this nation's history, religious people believed it was against their religious teachings that the races mix.

    Most religious people have moved past that belief... but it took a Supreme Court ruling to set the record straight. Religious people can still believe that the races should not mix...and some still do.

    The Supreme Court's ruling did not force religious people to believe otherwise...it just made any law forcing separation unlawful.

    Religious people can and will still be able to believe that SSM is against their religious teachings...they just will not be able to defy Federal or State law protections for protected classes.

    It has already been settled, religious peoples are entitled to believe as they wish...they are just not able to put those believes into practice in every circumstance.
    That is all wonderful but can this baker be compelled to make a rainbow wedding cake for a same sex marriage? He made them other cakes. He wasn't discriminating against the same sex couple. He was refusing to make the cake for the wedding. Further, why the hell would the same sex couple want him to be forced to make those wedding cakes? Do you want to force people to take your money? Isn't it better to just go somewhere that the person isn't so motivated by religious beliefs that he or she will turn down money?

  9. #19
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    62,035
    Thanks
    4058

    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    What religion do rainbow flags represent?
    The religion of gays. The democrats put gays above the constitution

    Democrats show they put gays above Christians. More bigotry from democrats. Special law and agendas for democrat special interest groups
    Last edited by ptif219; 27th June 2017 at 06:40 AM.

  10. #20
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    21,791
    Thanks
    19739

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    The religion of gays. The democrats put gays above the constitution

    Democrats show they put gays above Christians. More bigotry from democrats. Special law and agendas for democrat special interest groups
    Silly. Too too silly!
    Thanks from Minotaur

Page 2 of 150 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 6th August 2016, 08:14 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 06:26 PM
  3. Replies: 424
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 02:44 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 12:00 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th March 2016, 02:40 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed