Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 2:40 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9394
95
96979899Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1411 of 1484 (855441)
06-19-2019 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1409 by Faith
06-19-2019 6:58 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
If the law stays as it is such people really have no option but to refuse and take the consequences.

It appears to me that there are three options.

Don't make wedding cakes at all.

Continue making wedding cakes, but recognize the law is what it is and just grit one's teeth and sell them to all customers equally.

Willfully disobey the law by selling wedding cakes except to same sex couples until the fines bankrupt the business.

Are you saying that only the first and third are allowed options? That if a Christian follows the middle one then they are committing a sin?


It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1409 by Faith, posted 06-19-2019 6:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1412 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-19-2019 8:29 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2250
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1412 of 1484 (855443)
06-19-2019 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1411 by Chiroptera
06-19-2019 7:55 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Continue making wedding cakes, but recognize the law is what it is and just grit one's teeth and sell them to all customers equally.

I thought it was a big deal for Christians to ask for God's forgiveness, but I guess God cannot forgive wedding cakes, flowers, and photos.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1411 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 7:55 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1413 of 1484 (855462)
06-20-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1409 by Faith
06-19-2019 6:58 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

That is the whole point to my mind and there is no other point to be considered. This isn't something a court or anyone else can decide, only the person put in the position of obeying or denying God according to his or her own understanding. Whether it's about a message on the cake, mannikins, decorations or just the fact that it is for a gay wedding, it's the baker's conscience that's engaged and nobody else can decide this.

So if a segregationist decides that obedience to God requires excluding Blacks or forbidding mixed-race relationships or marriages, they should be allowed to ignore anti-discrimination laws.

If you really believed what you said, that is the position you would take. But you don’t take that position and you don’t believe it.

It’s just an excuse, and not even a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1409 by Faith, posted 06-19-2019 6:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1414 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 12:13 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1414 of 1484 (855463)
06-20-2019 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1413 by PaulK
06-20-2019 12:11 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Nothing I said was about being "allowed." I said we would take the consequences.

So if a segregationist also acts on conscience and takesthe consequences why not?

But your comparison is of course just the usual twisted trap.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1413 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2019 12:11 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1415 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2019 12:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1415 of 1484 (855466)
06-20-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1414 by Faith
06-20-2019 12:13 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

Nothing I said was about being "allowed." I said we would take the consequences.

So if a segregationist also acts on conscience and takesthe consequences why not?


It seems quite clear that you feel that the consequences are unjust.

quote:

But your comparison is of course just the usual twisted trap.

Or course it is neither twisted nor a trap. It is simply applying the principle you put forward to a closely-related situation. If there is a trap it is one you created for yourself by not thinking about the implications of your excuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 12:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1416 of 1484 (855500)
06-20-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


I attended my first gay marrige last Saturday in a Christian church, even though gay marrige has been legal in my country for many years.

Two of my friends got married. The reception was fun. The 'gay agenda' and all that...I look forward to years of absolute rule by my fabulous new Overlords.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1417 by vimesey, posted 06-20-2019 10:01 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 967
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 1417 of 1484 (855504)
06-20-2019 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1416 by Pressie
06-20-2019 8:28 AM


And here's you suffering no loss, having none of your rights infringed and getting to share in a part of the joy and wonder of two human beings, your friends, finding love with each other.

It's political correctness gone mad !!! ;-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1416 by Pressie, posted 06-20-2019 8:28 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1418 of 1484 (855506)
06-20-2019 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1405 by Chiroptera
06-19-2019 3:45 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
According to Ginsberg's dissent, William Jack's order including two grooms with an X and a hostile Bible verse was a message, and not one the baker was legally obligated to provide. I'm sure that it's the same for your swastika example in your next reply

I'm sure we both understand that William Jack's antics were designed with the sole intent of proving a double standard held by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. By highlighting the disparate reactions, Jack hoped it would then advance Phillip's argument. That said, those antics were in fact integral in showing SCOTUS that the CCRC reacted with hostility and bias towards Phillips due to his religious predilections. So its entirely a moot point how the CCRC ruled when they were overruled and overturned, which leaves us back at square one.

If a customer went into Jack Phillips' shop and ordered a cake with the words "Gay Marriage Totally Rocks!", Phillips would be legally entitled to refuse.

According to what? The shame of this case is that it was essentially dismissed on a technicality. The CCRC became more of the focal point, leaving wide open this uninterpreted and undefined clash between two rights -- the right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs and the right to enjoy equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation.

But a plain cake, even if it is obviously a wedding cake, is not a message. All by itself, it is not an expression in support of same sex marriage. And it doesn't magically turn into an endorsement just because it turns out to be intended for a same sex marriage.

I might actually be inclined to agree with you if I were ruling on this case. Based on some of the answers from the other posters on the thread, the line seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1405 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 3:45 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1420 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 1421 by Chiroptera, posted 06-20-2019 12:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1419 of 1484 (855516)
06-20-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1408 by Faith
06-19-2019 6:46 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

If you think I'm looking forward to Armageddon, which is a horrific war prophesied for the very end of time, no you do not know me at all.


"By their fruits ye shall know them."

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1408 by Faith, posted 06-19-2019 6:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1420 of 1484 (855521)
06-20-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1418 by Hyroglyphx
06-20-2019 11:17 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Based on some of the answers from the other posters on the thread, the llne seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale.

This continuing attempt to define how a Christian business MUST respond to requests to serve a gay marriage is completely futile. He's going to act on his own understanding of what it requires of him, act on his conscience no matter what the law says, act on his understanding of what God requires of Him even if it conflicts with the law. You can define it to precision to suit a legal judgment and if it conflicts with the baker's understanding of what God requires of him, it's nothing but futility.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1422 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 12:49 PM Faith has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1421 of 1484 (855533)
06-20-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1418 by Hyroglyphx
06-20-2019 11:17 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
That said, those antics were in fact integral in showing SCOTUS that the CCRC reacted with hostility and bias towards Phillips due to his religious predilections.

No, it was statements made on record by members of the Commission itself that showed hostility and bias. That the difference between the two situations was never adequately explained in the prior venues was a minor point and only becomes relevant in light of the explicit hostility shown by the Commission.

-

According to what?

According to the written opinions by the Justices themselves. Ginsburg was very clear about what she saw as the difference between the two situations. She stated that plain cakes are not messages. Messages are inferred by what is explicitly expressed by the decorations.

-

The shame of this case is that it was essentially dismissed on a technicality.

I agree that it's a shame. By I can't fault the Court in this. We both agree that this is an issue that requires careful consideration and perhaps some compromises among people who have passionate beliefs. Jack Phillips was certainly entitled to an unbiased, respectful hearing.

-

...the line seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale.

I may personally feel that the line should be closer to one end than the other, but I can see how people may want the line further to the other end. But as AZPaul points out, it's the duty of the Courts to listen to our arguments about what is and is not Constitutional, taking into account how the law affects people in the real world, and gives us a judgement as, hopefully, an unbiased and neutral referee.


It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1424 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 1:09 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1422 of 1484 (855542)
06-20-2019 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1420 by Faith
06-20-2019 12:09 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
This continuing attempt to define how a Christian business MUST respond to requests to serve a gay marriage is completely futile. He's going to act on his own understanding of what it requires of him, act on his conscience no matter what the law says, act on his understanding of what God requires of Him even if it conflicts with the law.

Christians and non-Christians need clearly definable law. And the proof of God's own approval from a Christian perspective is God's own word:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, tan avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." -- Romans 13:1-7

"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the Emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." -- 1 Peter 2:13-14

Paul and Peter clearly did not agree with Roman rule, as it were, but understood that humans need law outside of "God's divine law." This isn't ISIS, we don't throw gays off buildings and call it god's wrath... we give them equal treatment under the law. And according to Scripture, God is honored in our honoring of that, regardless if God disapproves of homosexuality itself. And that is scriptural.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1420 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 12:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1423 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1423 of 1484 (855545)
06-20-2019 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1422 by Hyroglyphx
06-20-2019 12:49 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious. The Roman laws obviously did not contradict God's laws but now we have a law that does contradict God's law.

And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1422 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1425 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2019 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1426 by Taq, posted 06-20-2019 1:13 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1427 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1429 by AZPaul3, posted 06-20-2019 1:32 PM Faith has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1424 of 1484 (855548)
06-20-2019 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1421 by Chiroptera
06-20-2019 12:30 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
No, it was statements made on record by members of the Commission itself that showed hostility and bias. That the difference between the two situations was never adequately explained in the prior venues was a minor point and only becomes relevant in light of the explicit hostility shown by the Commission.

Which was demonstrated and highlighted by their treatment of both Jack and Phillips when compared with the treatment of the soon to be married couple.

According to the written opinions by the Justices themselves. Ginsburg was very clear about what she saw as the difference between the two situations. She stated that plain cakes are not messages. Messages are inferred by what is explicitly expressed by the decorations.

Yeah, but she lost 7-2... it sounds as if you're taking Ginsburg's opinion as if it is now law as a matter of fact when it isn't. You might as well take the opinions of Gorsuch or Thomas as fact. This isn't to say that I personally disagree with what Ginsburg wrote, I'm just pointing out that it has no actual legality to it.

I agree that it's a shame. By I can't fault the Court in this. We both agree that this is an issue that requires careful consideration and perhaps some compromises among people who have passionate beliefs. Jack Phillips was certainly entitled to an unbiased, respectful hearing.

Yeah, its kind of like the Courts dismissing a charge against a defendant because they were able to prove that an officer had no probable cause. But I think the facts of the case stand on their own merits aside from the Commission. Something of this nature will arise again and had there already been precedent established, it could avoid lengthy and costly legal fees for a lot of clients.

I may personally feel that the line should be closer to one end than the other, but I can see how people may want the line further to the other end. But as AZPaul points out, it's the duty of the Courts to listen to our arguments about what is and is not Constitutional, taking into account how the law affects people in the real world, and gives us a judgement as, hopefully, an unbiased and neutral referee.

I still don't know how I would rule. I think I would really need to delve into the minutia of what actually transpired that day in order to formulate a genuine opinion. As it stands, I think both parties have valid complaints. I do think that most people's line of delineation being the decoration of the cake more or less being the line in the sand makes sense from a legal perspective. I think that distinction makes a huge difference.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1421 by Chiroptera, posted 06-20-2019 12:30 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 1425 of 1484 (855550)
06-20-2019 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:01 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious. The Roman laws obviously did not contradict God's laws but now we have a law that does contradict God's law

Then why haven’t you found a real contradiction ?

quote:

And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman.

By which you mean it is against gay couples enjoying the same secular legal rights as straight couples. That is and always has been the central issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9394
95
96979899Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019