Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Discussion in 'Current Events & Politics' started by Politico, Nov 21, 2017.

  1. Politico

    Politico Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,358
    As more SCOTUS judges are replaced with conservatives, we can get recent pro-queer decisions by SCOTUS overturned. SCOTUS has In the past entirely reversed their position. They can do so again. I know one of the judges is due For soon retirement.
     
  2. godsquadgeek

    godsquadgeek Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,515
    I think I'll go into a Muslim restaurant, demand a BLT, then sue them when they refuse on 'religious' grounds.
     
    Papyrus_dust likes this.
  3. Papyrus_dust

    Papyrus_dust Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    716
    That would make history brother. No one seems to mess with the Muslims faith and practice. It is only those who are to turn the other cheek for that so many slappers appear.
     
  4. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    Do you have sex with your spouse in private? Or public?
    Is one to assume because you are out in public with the same sex that you're gay? Are you OK with a retailer licensed to provide a public service, a public accommodation ,anything that supplies a need, want, favor, convenience, etc., refusing to serve you based on their personal judgment of your appearance based on the discrimination of their consciousness and conscience?
     
  5. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,792
    Where in this issue has the fact that they are homosexuals even pertinent? The baker did not refuse the cake because they were homosexuals; he refused because of the way they wanted it decorated. Please don't be like the left and conflate the 2, it makes all the difference in the world to understand the issue in this case. Now, if you believe they were refused because they were homosexual please lay out the evidence for that position.
     
  6. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    You'd lose if this effort on behalf of a baker, not an artist, succeeds in SCOTUS. You'd be refused service if a radical atheist decided they didn't want to serve you because they think you're a Christian and therefore in their mind a whack job.
    The false claim that this baker offered to make a plain cake for the gay couple not withstanding, this baker isn't an artist. He's a baker. He's licensed with the state of Oregon as a baker. He is obligated to serve his offerings as a baker of certain baked goods advertised, like cakes, pies, cookies, celebration cakes that would include wedding cakes, as a baker of these confections for which he sought a license for. He didn't seek to be licensed as an artist. He sought a public accommodation license for himself as a baker who owns a bakery that is licensed to serve in the capacity of baked goods.

    He's a bigot. And he wants the opportunity to practice religious discrimination at his whim and call it righteous.
    His bigotry is afforded by his judgment of one that would order a wedding cake for a gay couples ceremony. This is where his hatred is short sighted.
    Unless a customer asked for a cake that was decidedly decorated in a motif that indicates the gay lifestyle, this baker would have no idea what he's baking a wedding cake for.
    If someone asked for a traditional cake with not a wedded couple atop it, which is an elective topper not a compulsory one in this shop, I've asked because I called before he decided to stop making wedding cakes, this baker would have no clue on the earth that this cake he's accepted the order for is for a gay couples ceremony.
    He's asking to render refusal of service based on his religious beliefs wherein he claims he should have the right to not "participate" in a gay couples wedding ceremony.
    He's an idiot. Because he doesn't participate in that ceremony anymore than he's a participant in a 2 year old's birthday after her mom picks up the birthday cake from any baker . He's asked to bake a birthday cake. That doesn't give him an invitation to the party.
    And if the family of one of the gay couple footed the bill for the cake for the wedding, and ordered one that is in no way a design that could be linked with a forthcoming gay marriage ceremony, according to this bakers belief system, he'd be participating in that gay wedding having baked that cake. BUT, that cake in no wise gave him any indication in the design set forth by the customer who's money he took to be destined for the wedding of a gay couple.

    He's asking to exercise his conscience based on elective gender discrimination. And that is what he's asking for. He's asking to refuse to serve the male or female who's cake design appears or gives him the impression it is destined for, a gay wedding ceremony.

    He has to lose. If he doesn't everyone's screwed. This thread is an example of the world of hate we exist in as Christians. Hatred clad as being opposed to sin is still hatred. People who see people as God see's them, loving their neighbor, not judging based on appearances, get that again, based on appearances but on righteous judgment, which is what this baker, not artist, wants the legal right to do, judge based on appearance, because if the cake isn't overtly indicative of a gay's couple ceremony he's still baking a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding ceremony, is NOT defending sin.
    While defending this bakers right to violate God's edict about judgment, not based on appearances but based on righteous judgment, and a baker is not God to know who is righteous or not, is sin.

    This baker is going to lose this case.All signs within the chamber where this is being argued lead to the very distinct impression these judges are skeptical concerning the bakers stance.
    He has to lose. Or or the civil rights laws, the gender discrimination prohibitions, the religious freedoms protections, are shot! When it comes to entering the retail market place. The public accommodation arena. Stores, bed and breakfasts, photographers, florists, printers, bakers. Yes, your first amendment rights are inviolable. Unnnnnnless you need to buy something. That is what this bigot baker wants to establish in America.

    And he is a bigot. Further exampled by the fact his visual judgment , his outward appearance bias and demand to persecute select customers from that avenue,. does not extend to any other sinners who sin.
    Just the one's who would bring it to his attention like this. [​IMG]

    But, if a gay couple, or their family, or the best man or woman who decides to gift them their cake designs it like this, [​IMG] , the baker would have no idea it is destined for a gay couples ceremony.
    And if he's thinking he has the right to ask what occasion the cake or any confection is for before accepting the order? Who is he thinking he has the right to approve what someone wants from his public accommodation advertisement as a baker?

    Before you say, HE DOES! Ask yourself how you'd feel if you were asked that by a baker. And turns out they decide because they see that cross on the necklace you're wearing, they're going to refuse you. Because, and they are legally able, as this baker wants the right to, to tell you, "I refuse because you're a Christian! If you weren't a Christian I'd be happy to fill your order. "

    See, the self-righteous among us think we're the only one's for whom the laws of man should bend in order to pacify our expectations the whole world concede to our faith and beliefs and demands that follow.
    God help us.
    Because in Muslim nations we have a chance to witness in the safety of our western lands what happens to a people in fundamentalist sharia law governed Muslim nations wherein that very thing exists. And anyone not Muslim, dies.Because , they are not Muslim.

    This land isn't a Theocracy!
    God save us from any idiot that asks the US Supreme Court to lay the first brick to make it one.
    The forefathers of this country fled England because their government was a union of church and state. We'd be remiss in overturning 250 years of freedom because a baker thinks it is a sin to bake a cake. No dear deluded hate filled bigot, it is not a sin. Being a hate filled bigot focused on one kind of sinner in order to disgrace Jesus' admonitions concerning love thy neighbor, and thou shalt not judge, is the sin.
     
  7. godsquadgeek

    godsquadgeek Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,515
    probably because we be afraid for our lives.
     
  8. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    Prove it.
     
  9. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,792
    You are the one claiming contrary to the baker's statement.....his statement is already out there. Do you have evidence that he refused to make a cake based on the fact they were homosexuals and not because of the expression they wanted on the cake? If so, please present your evidence.
     
  10. reba

    reba Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    45,943
    Location:
    State of Jefferson
    Christian:
    Yes
  11. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,660
    Christian:
    Yes
    Said baker refused to bake cakes with Halloween decorations,not sued for that ,nor divorce party cakes.neither was sued for that and there wasn't any gay marriage in co at the time.so the couple wasn't legally married with the other cake. I highly doubt they got a cake ,drive and or flew to state that had it legal to marry gays.

    So those pagans or christians who celebrated Halloween didn't sue .
     
  12. reba

    reba Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    45,943
    Location:
    State of Jefferson
    Christian:
    Yes
    But jasonc homosexuals are special ... some folks believe the homosexuals rights out weigh other peoples .. A privet business should have the right to refuse service to who ever they wish.. let the market settle the issue... NOT GOVERNMENT
     
    jasonc and civilwarbuff like this.
  13. Papyrus_dust

    Papyrus_dust Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    716
    But unlike the Muslim, we are assured eternal life. There is no thing to fear.
     
    reba likes this.
  14. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    It appears someone who doesn't see God as a bigot is hated for sharing those words. While bigotry is hatred. Supporting contrary to what Christ commanded is hatred of his words. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Love thine enemies. Judge not based on appearances, wow, there's a clincher huh, but on righteous judgment? From thine own eye pluck the plank before looking to others and calling them sinners "in your view".
    Those who don't side with hatred of one particular class of sinners hate God's word? No, those that hate one class of sinners are hate. And God's word is not in them. This bakers hypocrisy evidence of that. Supposedly, his "moral religious" objection is to the frosting blend into a confectionary artistic configuration, is what entitles him to refuse this gay couples cake request?
    See, where he fails in his argument on religious , righteous indignation grounds, is when he, yet to be proven, would have made their cake had it been a plain cake. Wherein he then said he has a right to dictate how they celebrate by design, because somehow or other he believes he's approving their wedding if he makes a cake that outwardly looks "gay". But is not, if they would have conceded, yet to be proven, to accepting his making a plain wedding cake.

    He doesn't realize he would still be baking a cake, knowingly, for two sinners uniting in the sin that God calls an abomination.
    But that he has no problem participating in as long as his part is plain. And not fancy gay decorated by his hand at gay's request.


    And CivilWarBuff, I see you can't produce evidence to support your claim as to the bakers own words for refusing to bake the cake for the two men who these long years later are celebrating anniversaries.

    That's OK. If it is true what you claim, then the baker is worse a hypocrite than first imagined. His objection is to the decoration? The "obvious sin", and homosexuality is a sin, that is expressed were he to concede to decorate in a manner that "celebrates" sin? Meaning, his "xtian" ethic and morality arrives at drawing the line for the "obvious" sin. That what he imagines was present should he concede to make a "gay" wedding cake.

    He has no religious defense in that. And he's not an artist. He's licensed as a baker. If he wins this anyone can claim to be an artist and violate civil rights at their personal discretion. The florist can claim they're an artist and refuse to make flower arrangements for the Christian baptism, or wedding celebration.
    Personalize this bakers demand to be entitled to launch a campaign for legal bigotry.

    What if "I" were refused this because I am..... Fill in the blank.
    That's what this baker is asking.
    Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Anyone who says I've said it is not is a liar. Proven because of what I've said in my posts. They will never unless they edit it find where I said homosexuality is not a sin. NEVER
     
  15. Jim Parker

    Jim Parker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    Messages:
    8,622
    Location:
    Right here, right now
    Christian:
    Yes
    Look it up on line.
     
  16. Papyrus_dust

    Papyrus_dust Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    716
    :pray How about this :pray
    We can't turn on each other because a court upon who's face is Moses the receiver of God's laws is carved is now in session over a question of business privileges and rights. It is not an ecclesiastical proceeding. It is man's laws and man's court presiding over a scriptural issue. Can we butt heads with one another over this and divide the church? :missyou I pray not. I wish we had a group hug smiley here.
     
    Justicewolf likes this.
  17. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,792
    It is in the evidence argued before SCOTUS; if you don't know what was presented perhaps you should step back from the conversation.
     
  18. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    No. If it is true the one making the claim should be able to prove what they defend as existing.
     
  19. Justicewolf

    Justicewolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    When you can't support with evidence your claim, perhaps you should step back from the conversation.In any other thread if someone makes a statement about a fact, they're asked to prove it. And when they don't they're chastised.

    Those behaviors are relegated to those of choice? Not a rule for all? Prove it. Or it isn't truth. That's how it works. The one that makes the claim is obligated to show proof. Otherwise it is conjecture and dismissible as such.
     
  20. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,792
    It is impossible to argue against willful ignorance.....I think we are done here.......
     

Share This Page