Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1306 of 1484 (838538)
08-23-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Aussie
08-23-2018 12:51 PM


Re: For the record: Canaanites sacrificial system was largely adopted by Israelites.
I don't post opinions about things I've said I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Aussie, posted 08-23-2018 12:51 PM Aussie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by ringo, posted 08-23-2018 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1309 of 1484 (841277)
10-10-2018 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by Tangle
10-10-2018 4:30 PM


Too bad we can't get our gay cake/flowers/photos cases settled by the UK supreme court, cuz ours don't discriminate against the man either, just the message symbolized by the cake.
Is there some way to get your court's opinion on our cases? Could someone write to them and ask?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2018 4:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1310 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 3:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1311 of 1484 (841291)
10-11-2018 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by Tangle
10-11-2018 3:13 AM


There are parts of this judgment that I found too confusing, possibly irrelevant to the main point although I'm not sure. In any case just to identify the parts that I think most important I went through it and crossed out the other parts, and then moved the ones that make the most sense to me to the bottom.
quote:
The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34].
The message was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of the customer, as support for gay marriage was not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation [25]. The benefit of the message accrues not only to gay or bisexual people, but to their families and friends and to the wider community who recognise the social benefits which such commitment can bring [33]. Thus, there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in this case.
The political beliefs claim
Protection against direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion has constitutional status in Northern Ireland [37].
The discrimination has to be on the ground of the religion or belief of someone other than the alleged discriminator [43-45].
As the appellants’ objection was not to Mr Lee, but to being required to promote the message on the cake, the situation was not comparable with people being refused jobs or services simply because of their religious faith,
but it was arguable that the message was indissociable from Mr Lee’s political opinion. It was therefore necessary to consider the impact of the McArthurs’ ECHR rights on the meaning and effect of FETO [48].
Impact of ECHR rights
The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].
Jurisdiction
The appellants were entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to FETO notwithstanding their election to appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated. Although such appeals are usually final under article 61(6) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (‘article 61(6)’), there is an exception in section 42(6) Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 in respect of decisions involving any question as to the validity of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly. FETO was equivalent to such a measure and the appellants did challenge its validity if it failed to protect their rights. It was not necessary to decide whether this also permitted the SORs appeal, given the overlap in the circumstances, because of the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the Attorney General’s references [63- 71].
The Court of Appeal had been wrong to reject the reference requested by the Attorney General under paragraph 33 on the ground the proceedings were concluded. In principle, appeals are against orders not judgments and, in this context, it is natural to regard the proceedings as live until a final order is issued. This error had deprived the appellants of the inevitably different judgment on the question of whether the SORs imposed civil liability on them for their refusal to express a political opinion contrary to their religious beliefs, which would have eventually followed. An appeal to the Supreme Court following such a procedural error was not precluded by article 61(6), which was focused on the point of law not on a challenge to the fairness or regularity of the Court of Appeal’s process. Even though the error was collateral to the litigation between the appellants and Mr Lee, it would be overly technical to deny the appellants the benefit of the proper handling of the reference. An appeal therefore lay to the Supreme Court against all aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, including its decision in respect of the alleged discrimination under the SORs as well as under FETO [76-90].

=======================================
The parts that seem most relevant separated out:
quote:
The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34]
The political beliefs claim
Protection against direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion has constitutional status in Northern Ireland [37]
As the appellants’ objection was not to Mr Lee, but to being required to promote the message on the cake, the situation was not comparable with people being refused jobs or services simply because of their religious faith,
The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].
On the basis of these comments I'd like to hire these judges to sit on our cases.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 3:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 10:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1313 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 11:23 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1316 of 1484 (841331)
10-11-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1313 by caffeine
10-11-2018 11:23 AM


No I'm not missing that. I'm assuming the judges would recognize that a wedding cake is a very special creation made specifically for a wedding and a particular wedding at that, designed especially for the customers. All by itself it carries the message "wedding" without any writing on it at all. It isn't just "a cake," which they could purchase off the shelf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 11:23 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1317 of 1484 (841332)
10-11-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1315 by caffeine
10-11-2018 1:18 PM


The way I read that judgment it seemed to me that a person who objects to gay marriage is not obligated to do ANYTHING that would imply participation or support of a gay marriage, in a commercial capacity or otherwise. However, if they make exceptions that a religious person can't accept, the religious person will not accept them and take the consequences, basically a form of Inquisition by the State against a citizen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 1:18 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 1:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1319 of 1484 (841335)
10-11-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1318 by PaulK
10-11-2018 1:58 PM


I put it aside as incomprehensible, which is how I still see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 2:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1321 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 2:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1322 of 1484 (841338)
10-11-2018 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1321 by Tangle
10-11-2018 2:12 PM


Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1321 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 2:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1324 of 1484 (841374)
10-11-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Chiroptera
10-11-2018 7:51 PM


Phillips' conscience was engaged by knowing it was for a gay wedding, and a wedding cake is a very particular item that can be for nothing else than a wedding. He'd have had to work with the two men to design it to their requirements so it would engage him at many levels. Ginsburg and Sotomayor got it wrong and if their view had prevailed Phillips would have had to go out of the wedding cake business. Not that they'd care or anybody else of course, gay marriage is more important than anybody's conscience, most especially a Christian conscience.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1323 by Chiroptera, posted 10-11-2018 7:51 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1326 by Tangle, posted 10-12-2018 2:49 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1327 of 1484 (841438)
10-12-2018 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1326 by Tangle
10-12-2018 2:49 AM


gay marriage not gays
Faith writes:
Phillips' conscience was engaged by knowing it was for a gay wedding, and a wedding cake is a very particular item that can be for nothing else than a wedding. He'd have had to work with the two men to design it to their requirements so it would engage him at many levels.
My reading of the UK judgement would make that pretty cleary discrimination. They're refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple only because it will be used at a gay wedding.
My reading was that if they judge against a person's being forced to write something in favor of gay marriage, that they would be equally against forcing a person to provide a special service for a gay wedding, since it is gay marriage which is the thing being refused, not the persons.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1326 by Tangle, posted 10-12-2018 2:49 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1328 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 2:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1329 of 1484 (841449)
10-13-2018 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1328 by Tangle
10-13-2018 2:46 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
I don't think there is even such a thing as a "standard" wedding cake. They are specialty items, custom designed for the occasion to the specifications of the parties to be married. If it was just a matter of buying a standard cake out of the display case there would be no problem, they could do with it whatever they like. It's the engagement of the baker in a creative endeavor that is the problem. And it IS about gay marriage, not about the persons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1328 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 2:46 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1330 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 3:33 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1335 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 12:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1331 of 1484 (841452)
10-13-2018 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1330 by Tangle
10-13-2018 3:33 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
This has been argued to death for years already. If the baker feels he or she is being put in the position of giving endorsement to gay marriage, whatever circumstances bring that about, they will refuse to do it. If the court thinks that is discrimination against gay people rather than an objection to gay marriage I would consider the court to be wrong, but in any case they will punish the baker and possibly put the baker out of business. If that's the way it goes, then that's the way it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1330 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 3:33 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1332 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 5:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1349 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2018 5:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1333 of 1484 (841457)
10-13-2018 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1332 by Tangle
10-13-2018 5:09 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
Exactly. And there's the persecution you want to deny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1332 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 5:09 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1334 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2018 7:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1336 of 1484 (841478)
10-13-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1335 by ringo
10-13-2018 12:23 PM


Re: gay marriage not gays
Use your head. How do you think the Christian baker would respond to that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1335 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 12:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1337 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 3:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1338 of 1484 (841485)
10-13-2018 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1337 by ringo
10-13-2018 3:30 PM


Re: gay marriage not gays
You lying accusers really need to grow a brain.
God ordained marriage for a man and a woman, period. Any other use of it is a violation of His ordinance.
Now use that one brain cell to figure out what the Christian baker would do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1337 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 3:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1339 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 4:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1340 of 1484 (841487)
10-13-2018 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by ringo
10-13-2018 4:01 PM


What God said about Marriage
God ordained marriage for a man and a woman, period.
No He didn't. He didn't say anything about marriage. Marriage is strictly a human invention.
Liar.
Gen 2:24 writes:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Jesus in Mat 19:4-5 writes:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by ringo, posted 10-13-2018 4:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1342 by ringo, posted 10-14-2018 2:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1346 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 3:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024