Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Just taking everything literally is not much of an argument.

 

If it is helpful to you, certainly.

Are you aware of any bakers who refuse to provide their public service in the form of wedding cakes for individuals who have been divorced because their creed really does have an injunction against it?

 

I'm stating reality: A marriage is not sex, nor is it a requisite for any sort of sex, whether that's an issue for someone else or not. It's a legal contract.

Nor is there a tenet of any religion that forbids providing services for the celebration of legal contracts.

 

I thought it was clear, it says the unmarried should not marry, but it's better to marry then burn with passion

 

No, but don't care. It's their bakery, not mine.

 

do they sell cakes with racial epitaphs?


Funnier than intended.

 

It is in no way irrelevant. We are discussing the law.

This is what is irrelevant. The law says otherwise. Religious beliefs do not exempt you from the law.

 

Apparently English isn’t your first language.

 

Do you even understand that laws -- all laws -- are subject to judicial review? You don't sound like it. Legislatures can no more utter the last word on policy than can the President.

Laws can be invalidated for a variety of reasons: vagueness, overbreadth, impinging on the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth tenth and fourteenth amendments, to name a few.

That's what's going on in the flower case and in ths abortion law challenges in several states.

 

"Don't apply to what" ? You are confusing essential liberty with things that are not. One does not have the "liberty" to harm others on the basis of religious belief. You don't have the right engage in infanticide on the basis of religious belief.

A simple way to remember the difference is "rights end where the nose of another begins"

This a bad argument - as you have not addressed the issue at hand - it is essentially a non argument as you have not provided any explanation of this kind of discrimination fits into the above rule.

 

A few posts ago, you thanked me for providing some intelligent comments. I would also like to thank you, as you made many very intelligent comments. Unfortunately, I found your comment above fairly lacking in that department.

You are taking your own bias literal interpretation as what a marriage is (a legal contract and not sex) and basically stating that is how others should see it as well. Then you built a strawman argument that religious groups do not forbid the celebration of "legal contracts" based on your own interpretation. While you are technically correct that marriage is a legal contract, I believe that you are much smarter than to believe the issue is that simple or that all people view marriage in such a manner.

Marriage implies "sex". While not all weddings are religious ceremonies, many traditions of weddings are religious based. It is not unreasonable to expect others to see weddings as being "religious" or that they may view weddings as more than just a "legal contract". While your description of marriage may be YOUR reality, it is not really a reality shared by those that believe marriage is much more or by those that find opposition to same-sex marriage. While I might not agree completely with that opposition, I do understand WHY they might feel that way.

 

Obviously.

Strawman

I’ve never claimed otherwise.

 

That marriage, regardless of gender, is a legal contract, and not sex, is reality.

That the celebration of such a legal contract is not sex is reality.

That some folks associate sex with marriage is reality.

That a baker may think about other people having sex when he makes a wedding cake is reality.

Bakers may have a right to discriminate, but religion is a fake excuse.

No religion proscribes baking cakes for weddings, and religious bakers routinely bake wedding cakes without concerning themselves about whether their customers adhere to their moral strictures.

When personal prejudices can sanction discrimination, the American ideal of equality under law is rejected. Not long ago, it was interracial marriage. Now it's same-gender marriage.

I expect that progress will continue.

 

As we've discussed, that is a ludicrous comparison. Race is immutable, same-sex attraction isn't. The Bible doesn't support racism as it prohibits sodomy, and by extension, facilitating it's celebration. Doesn't matter if you understand it. Your hostility to religion is as palpable as the CO commission that lost to the SCOTUS 7-2.

Yup, more SCOTUS victories coming for Christian bakers.

 

Is it your opinion that sexual orientation is arbitrary? Was there a point that you decided yours, whatever your choice?

Regardless, at the time interracial marriage was legalized in America (1967), most opposed it, but progress ensued.

​

The progress has been impressive for same-sex marriage.

 

No. Just stupid.

 

What about assets?

 

Yes, which is why if someone had a policy of refusing to serve gay people, this wouldn't be an issue. However, these people are happy to serve gay people. They just don't want to participate in their same sex weddings.

 

What about the rest of my post = the part that refutes your dumb argument. Densorama

 

Baking a cake, or arranging flowers isn’t participating in a wedding. Sorry.

 

Since you have no Religious beliefs, you don't find it detestable.....that is your belief.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

Legally, a marriage is a contract.

 

Between two individuals, not the public at large.

 

How about a law that says

"No one engaged in commerce shall decline to perform an essential service to any person able and willing to pay unless the provision of said service is economically or otherwise impractical or violates the sincerely held moral or religious belief of the provider.

The provider shall enjoy the right to jury trial to determine 1) whether the service is question is essential, and 2) whether the provider has any compelling physical, economic, practical, moral or religious belief that prevent him from providing the service."

I think few people would refuse service in the first place, and fewer still would want to risk an adverse verdict.