Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker To Make Cakes For Same-sex Ceremonies Or Face Fines.
- Thread starter RosaVera
- Start date
You cannot compare Christianity to any mickey mouse / personal religion. Its influence on laws cannot be ignored. Any judge with half a brain cell would know that.
How long ago did it become legal for gays to marry in your area? Where in scripture does it state racism is fine?
When God's / scripture's influence on society dies, the rapture / end of the world takes place
. We are in that swirling drain phase.
Last edited:
See how dangerous inserting opinions are. You are mocking them but you are doing the same thing.
If we don't draw the line with scripture, we are / go pagan. Visualize society before Christianity. That is where we are headed. Is that what you want?
Last edited:
If we all just become politically correct and each one of us not stand up for our faith, who will and where will we end up...? King J said it, do we want to go back to the days of pagans before Christianity...? God forbid, yet we are on the way... with the subtle laws passed all for the 'good of the people', with the not so subtle ways that if anyone says anything not 'correct' we are stood out and derided as racist, as having phobias , as not bending to the will of those who speak loudest. Do we bend and let those that offend us to have power over us...? Many today and in the past have given their lives for the Word of Christ, and we are to be bound to be 'correct' according to the will of any government or particular group...? We either stand up for God's word in its entirety or we become like them...
Who says that laws made are just laws... we see today in our own country laws made that go against the will of the people and keeps us from being free to pursue our personal freedoms and of religion... even the Supreme Court has made laws in the past that went against humanity, yet they were the laws of the land at that time not too long ago when slavery was made Constitutional by SCOTUS ... today laws are being passed and as more are passed the less the individual freedoms of each citizen, and yes we are on the way even in our country to when Christians were persecuted for their faith... persecution is not just to be flogged and stoned, it comes in many different forms ...
Who says that laws made are just laws... we see today in our own country laws made that go against the will of the people and keeps us from being free to pursue our personal freedoms and of religion... even the Supreme Court has made laws in the past that went against humanity, yet they were the laws of the land at that time not too long ago when slavery was made Constitutional by SCOTUS ... today laws are being passed and as more are passed the less the individual freedoms of each citizen, and yes we are on the way even in our country to when Christians were persecuted for their faith... persecution is not just to be flogged and stoned, it comes in many different forms ...
RiverJordan
Inactive
"Natural law" (whatever that is) is not the issue here.
Are you arguing that Jim Crow laws were forced upon a southern white population that didn't want them?
And no, the analogy to interracial couples is not flawed. Like the gay couple in the OP, the discrimination is based on who a person chooses to marry. In one case it's "I'm discriminating against you because you married a person of the same sex" and the other it's "I'm discriminating against you because you married a person of a different race".
You need to learn US history better. Jim Crow laws were at the state and local level, not federal.
Oh no worries.
I see this as you arguing from a perspective of a society you want to exist, whereas I'm arguing from a perspective of the society that does exist.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Then I strongly suggest you contact this man's legal team and relay your foolproof strategy ASAP.
It also ensure that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. Your freedom to practice your religion ends when it negatively affects others. And since when is discriminating against gays a part of the Christian religion?
Are you saying gluttony and greed are not sins?
I'm not justifying their lifestyle, nor are anyone's Constitutional rights being violated.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Completely different situation. A church is not a business.
I also guarantee you they've served sinners of all sorts. But because of conservative Christianity's extreme focus on homosexuality right now, he's singled gays out as the only sinners he won't do business with.
"Natural law" (whatever that is) is not the issue here.
Are you arguing that Jim Crow laws were forced upon a southern white population that didn't want them?
And no, the analogy to interracial couples is not flawed. Like the gay couple in the OP, the discrimination is based on who a person chooses to marry. In one case it's "I'm discriminating against you because you married a person of the same sex" and the other it's "I'm discriminating against you because you married a person of a different race".
You need to learn US history better. Jim Crow laws were at the state and local level, not federal.
Oh no worries.
I see this as you arguing from a perspective of a society you want to exist, whereas I'm arguing from a perspective of the society that does exist.
Haha, I suspect the society I want to exist will never be. I am only arguing from the principle I hold. The natural law is the law of which no one truly has control over. For instance, the law of gravity can't be restricted nor voluntary. It just is. The natural law in terms of we humans is that we have a right to speak, think, ownership of our labor, etc. Granted people do restrict these rights, but that doesn't mean the right itself isn't there.
You're right though about how Jim Crow laws were at State level. I meant to say local groups worked toward nullifying (using that word broadly). I confused my own example since parts of Slave laws (like the Fugitive Slave Law) in which certain States nullified (using that word more officially). In all honesty, the whole thing in itself is sidetracked.
I didn't mean to compare your case for interracial couples as flawed. I think going by your standards of where law is valid, it aligns perfectly. It's more about disconnecting law enacted by officials vs. natural law. This is often where Liberals (and even many, many Conservatives) disagree with Libertarianism.
But I have no doubt your argument is intended to show tolerance and love. I'm only meaning to argue also for tolerance, but even for rights of every individual, including property rights (which again, is where we won't see eye-to-eye). I hope this makes sense.
RiverJordan
Inactive
No. In both cases, it's a question of who a person decides to marry. In one it's marrying someone of the same sex, in the other it's marrying someone of a different race.
That came about because of the responses here that question any and all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.
The one I repeated that you answered below.
See, that's why conservative Christians always lose these cases. When it comes right down to it, they are unable to cite any legal justification for their discrimination and eventually just yell "it's icky".
RiverJordan
Inactive
Sorry, but I have no idea what your point is here.
RiverJordan
Inactive
So if conservative Christians aren't allowed to discriminate against gays, Christianity will end and we'll all be pagans? Um......yeah....o_O
RiverJordan
Inactive
You're missing the point. If one Christian can go to a judge and say "I discriminated against this gay couple because of my religious beliefs", why can't another go before a judge and say "I discriminated against this interracial couple because of my religious beliefs"?You cannot compare Christianity to any mickey mouse / personal religion. Its influence on laws cannot be ignored. Any judge with half a brain cell would know that.
How long ago did it become legal for gays to marry in your area? Where in scripture does it state racism is fine?
When God's / scripture's influence on society dies, the rapture / end of the world takes place
Do you really want our court system deciding what is "Christian" and what isn't?
your missing the point ..
you do not know that he discriminated in anyway towards a gay person ..
he refused to breech his religious beliefs .. which IS legal ..
and what if he made birthday cakes for gays ???
that would PROVE no discrimination ..
DO YOU KNOW HE DID NOT ???
therefore you do not judge righteously, but by appearance ..
which Jesus told us NOT to do (with a warning) ..
Jhn 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Mat 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
so .. are you going to defy what Jesus told us and continue to judge without knowing all the facts ???
how prejudice is that ???
legally, the law recognizes "organized religions" and NO organized religions beliefs discriminate against race .. thus your argument is silly ..
Last edited:
RiverJordan
Inactive
Lysander,
I understand your argument, it's just that when it comes to human behavior, "natural law" is an entirely subjective abstract concept. Your idea of what natural law says about this situation may differ greatly from what someone else thinks natural law says. That makes it very difficult to debate.
I understand your argument, it's just that when it comes to human behavior, "natural law" is an entirely subjective abstract concept. Your idea of what natural law says about this situation may differ greatly from what someone else thinks natural law says. That makes it very difficult to debate.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Um, you need to read the facts of the case. The entire case is about him refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple celebrating their marriage (not a wedding cake). Under Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, that is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
What in the world are you talking about? Even the baker fully acknowledges that he refused to bake the cake because they're a gay couple. Wow.
History definitively shows you to be wrong.
It is just as different as the race/sexual orientation issue.
Honestly, if I owned a cake store, I doubt I would care who I made the cakes for. My ownership of the store is not directly linked to my Christianity (my ability to perform weddings is). If I wasn't a Christian, I could still own a store. I could even put a sign up that says "Christian owned" if I wanted. It's not like anyone polices this. The couple wants to run a business under their interpretation of some rather strict, and ill-defined Christian values.
But the link between race and sexual orientation is a very, very dangerous one. First, nobody can choose their race no matter what they do. EVERYONE chooses their sexual orientation. Stick with me here, there is debate on whether or not someone is born gay or not. Last I heard, nobody is really born with any sexual desire. Despite what pedophiles try to claim, children are not born with a desire to seek a sexual partner. Even if they are born with an innate proclivity to someday become gay, they simply aren't born gay. Marriage is VERY much a choice. You CHOOSE who you marry. You freely choose who you take as a sexual partner. The same cannot be said in any way, shape, or form about race. The difference between race and homosexuality is just as different as the difference between a church and a cake store. Race never involves any choice. Having sex with someone of your same sex is ALWAYS a choice, regardless of what desire you have inside you. You can't NOT be whatever race you were born, but you can NOT have sex with someone.
The other thing I note is this entitlement mentality that people have in this generation. It's really a lack of personal responsibility. If you don't like how a business operates, don't cater to that business. I would never go to a company that refused service to minorities. I probably wouldn't go to one that refused service to homosexuals. I simply don't want to support companies like that. By creating laws that businesses have to serve everyone, aren't we pushing their prejudices into the shadows? Now, I don't know what business are owned by hate groups. I have no way of knowing that the little mom-and-pop restaurant I love is operated by faithful Klan members. I'd like to know that, but they can't tell anyone because they would be fined. That's the same as ignoring the problem. I'd rather know what I'm getting into, but for some reason, everyone would rather rely on the government to protect them from anything unpleasant. If a cake company doesn't want to serve minorities or gay couples, then let them go out of business. Even if they had won the lawsuit, it's unlikely their business would survive very long.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Banarenth,
I understand your point, but when it comes to interracial marriage it is very analogous to gay marriage. Both are directly related to the choice of who one decides to marry.
For example, there was a church that was in the news recently for refusing to marry an interracial couple. The church leaders claimed they weren't racist, as they welcome people from all races and had had blacks and whites as members. Their position was "We're not bigoted against blacks or any other race. Everyone is welcome here. We just don't believe different races should mix."
In the OP case, as you noted the baker seems to have served other sinners and he may even have served gays. It's just when it came to the question of marriage, he refused.
So you're right, this is about choice, in terms of who a person decides to marry.
As far as your last paragraph, I'll again point out that history shows that without government intervention, most of the time these sorts of things get worse rather than better.
I understand your point, but when it comes to interracial marriage it is very analogous to gay marriage. Both are directly related to the choice of who one decides to marry.
For example, there was a church that was in the news recently for refusing to marry an interracial couple. The church leaders claimed they weren't racist, as they welcome people from all races and had had blacks and whites as members. Their position was "We're not bigoted against blacks or any other race. Everyone is welcome here. We just don't believe different races should mix."
In the OP case, as you noted the baker seems to have served other sinners and he may even have served gays. It's just when it came to the question of marriage, he refused.
So you're right, this is about choice, in terms of who a person decides to marry.
As far as your last paragraph, I'll again point out that history shows that without government intervention, most of the time these sorts of things get worse rather than better.
RiverJordan
Inactive
ixoye,
The judge ruled that the baker cannot invoke his free speech rights, since he was not asked to engage in any speech. He was simply asked to bake a generic cake.
The judge ruled that the baker cannot invoke his free speech rights, since he was not asked to engage in any speech. He was simply asked to bake a generic cake.