Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

^ call yourself what you wish

 

No, that's what YOU personally might call me on this forum
in ten years. You most likely have never heard the term, but
once you learn it you will abuse the "right winger", traditionalists
and bemused conservatives with the word. Just as you do with
the term "homophobia" today.

 

^ actually the term homophobia has suddenly and very conveniently become a favorite of your fellow right wingers and they hate it when patriots shove it back in their faces

 

When a black person buys a cake are they “forcing their values”? What about a Christian? Why does it only apply to gays?

Gays wanting equal services and being treated equally in the eyes of the law is in no way similar to what the right wants to do to gay people - from calls of imprisonment to execution to revocation of basic rights - these issues do not compare.

Why is “religious freedom” always about harming or the disenfranchisement of others?

 

The issue between a person doing something with a gay and a person
doing something with a black person is subtly different.
The gay issue is a moral one. The black is a racial one.
The bible treats all people as one - a "universalism" and a "brotherhood."
The bible treats homosexuality as a sin - similar to divorce and adultery.

You might not agree with that, but here you are treading upon religious
beliefs. If I got remarried in my church I would have to leave - its a similar
thing. And if I saw this as "discrimination" and went to the law I would be
effecting people's right to worship because the bible says that divorce and
remarriage is adultery.
The bible says nothing about people of color.

 

People once felt race was a moral one. That they were superior because of twisted religious logic.

The Bible is a book written by man, edited by kings and translated by scholars that disagree on basic words. It’s view on any topic is irrelevant garnering as much validity as a Dr Seuss book.

Your beliefs are just that - beliefs. They have no basis in reality or legal principle. A cult based around sky fairies. Your beliefs are no different than the individuals blowing themselves up along with children and beheading unbelievers of their chosen sky fairy mental delusion.

The only difference between a cult and religion is the amount of real estate they own.

It also says nothing about lesbians or monogamous gay men - but that hasn’t stopped your ilk from your hate. And as usual, another “person of god” that is woefully ignorant to how that book as been used as rationale for all sorts of evil. Many have used it to promote the separation of the races and slavery across the globe.

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Bible's racist monstrosities: How the "word of God" has been — and still is — used to oppress

TENNESSEE PASTOR RAILS AGAINST INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

 

A clear example of right wing homophobia.

Where are the forum's right wingers to criticize this now that they have suddenly embraced gay rights?

 

You might want to read more of the literature back then on 'race mixing'. You will find that there was not only a moral component to their argument ( those poor children!), there were men of the cloth somehow found scripture in the sunday sermons against interracial marriage. Clerics and bigots can be very creative. Here's a good one explaining how they used scripture http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm,
A solo operation here. http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/index.php?/topic/78-biblical-arguments-against-race-mixing/.
Here some moral arguments by our Stormfront Brethren https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t617416/
This touches on both with a special section called 'witness to scripture' http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/

 

There's so many fallacies to this I don't know where to begin
1 - what a particularly church or pastor says is irrelevant - I am not in that church
and they don't respect the bible.
2 - if the bible is nothing more than a Dr Seuss book is irrelevant - if someone believes
in a Dr Seuss book as being divinely inspired (which people don't) then that would come
under the category of religion.
3 - the only time the bible spoke against any race was because of that race's religion, not
the color of their skin.
4 - yes, some think skin color is moral. Some of the Jews were scandalized because Moses
himself married a black woman. But the error lay with those particular Jews, not Moses or the
bible.
5 - the bible does have a basis in reality. It claims to be historical.
6 - cults and religions. Can't figure out what the terms really mean. Christianity held no real
estate. I don't think it should.
7 - no King for the last 3,000 years has edited the bible that I am aware of.

But the bottom line is - some people on the Marxist Left exploit issues of homosexuality to
gain ascendancy over all socio, economic and political groups. Cultural Marxists are no
different than economic Marxists. I am not sure if any gay groups would be able to operate
under a Marxist state unless it was officially approved.

 

Are you referring to church practices or biblical beliefs?
And, if biblical beliefs, were they the common beliefs of
the Jews or those held by the prophets?
For instance many Jews didn't like Moses marrying an
Ethiopian woman - but they didn't understand the whole
purpose of God's law.

 

Reread the post. I have added modern examples. My point is broadly about this 'religious exemption' to specific laws or regulations some people may claim. It does not matter whether they are 'good arguments' or not. Our judges do not have theology degrees. They are not trained in how to interpret people's bibles or religious doctrines, nor are they in a position to decide if those argument are sufficiently flawed to be discounted.

You have no boundaries on some 'religious exemption' to state or congressional laws. You cannot just extend this to a few florists or bakers that are uncomfortable with gay marriage. Home owners, Apartment owners and employers who are uncomfortable appeasing or facilitating 'sin', get to discriminate too. Now we are talking pink slips and eviction notices. You cannot decide only Christians get to be exempt from laws. Muslims, Jews and every other religion gets to self exempt themselves from statutes. All of the sudden 'sharia law' can have some legal significance! You cannot just apply this to civil rights laws. Environmental laws, tax laws, labor laws, consumer protection laws, all may require that of some faith compromise in some way with some perceived tenet. By the way, some day an agnostic/ atheist will seek the same right that people of faith have to an exemption, on secular moral grounds, and the entire statute, whichever one it may be, is completely unenforceable.

This is a dangerous little game we are playing.

 

Still waiting for forum con servatives to condemn right wing homophobia.

 

If I were you, I'd go to sleep. tomorrow and the rest of the week, you might want to find something else to do while you wait

 

1) Of course it doesn’t, the passages in the Bible or Koran or any other religious texts are completely the interpretation of the individual. Which is why it cannot have any basis on individuals that do not wish it to. You saying race is not mentioned but homosexuality is a sin is your interpretation.
2) Religion is the biggest fraud perpetrated in the history of mankind
3) Many people disagree with that - their opinion is just as valid as yours
4) See 1 & 3
5) It also claims women should be subservient to men and blending fabrics is immoral
6) Orginazied religion holds tons of real estate. Or is your church not owned by anyone? Do y’all use a clearing in the woods?
7) Which means it has been edited - and the other points remain

As education and science expands so comes the death of religious corruption and exploitation.
The world will be better off.

 

Golly gee, they were so hell bent on condemning progressives over the Mika affair.

Isn't funny how yesterday they were so adamant that it is the left that is homophobic. Today those same critics from the far right are silent.


But why am I not surprised???

LOL.

 

I have no time for the Koran - I see it as being no more valid than the Book of Mormon.
Whether you think religion is a "fraud" or not (and a lot of it certainly IS fraudulent) is not
the point - religion is the foundation of all our freedoms.
Re blending fabrics and the like - this belongs to the traditions of the Jews in the Old Testament
and even Jesus said there were rules that were not of God but "of the Fathers."
The foundation church met in homes - they rejected "temples built with hands." They also rejected
political power, wealth, philosophy of man and making merchandise out of people.
Yes, women should be subservient, but men had to honorable, respectful, loving, caring, committed.
Who do you think has "edited" the Christian bible?

But it all comes down to homosexuality. Two things
1 - homosexuality is illegal in the bible
2 - no one professing Godliness should seek to stop another person living as they see fit.

 

It’s funny, and hugely hypocritical to assert that religion is the foundation of all of our freedoms — it isn’t — and then then assert that two of the largest denominations on the planet are invalid.

Women should not be subservient to men and your religious beliefs — because that’s all they are, your interpretations of text written by other men — should not be the basis for anything outside of your own home.

 

Let me amend this. Freedom of religion is ONE of the foundational freedoms.
If someone has the power to take away such a freedom, then they pretty well
have power to take away anything.
And should women be subservient to men? If you say no, then should children
be subservient to their mothers? And should anyone be subservient to their
(elected) government? Should we be subservient to the law and constitution?
The bible sees it that we honor each other.

 

sub·ser·vi·ent
/səbˈsərvēənt/
adjective

1. prepared to obey others unquestioningly
   • less important; subordinate.

So no, I don’t believe any individual should be subservient to anything or anyone.

I know it’s the cornerstone of religion — unquestioning obedience in opposition to fact or logic — but in earthly practice we end up with tyrannical government or mass murderers, again othen twisted around the corruption that is religion. You believe we should “honor” one another but it’s justified to call homosexuality illegal because of a passage that you yourself stated were not the rules of God.

I agree that the freedom of religious faith is something that should be fought for — even though many of those people will use this privilege to fight against the freedoms of others. The freedom of religion should not however be held in a higher regard than the freedom from religion. There should be no exception from law, tax, or responsibility than any other has.

 

Here's the Problem.
A church doesn't accept divorce, for example.
(it's biblical, they correctly say)
and won't grant a church member a divorce.
The secular state steps in (like the alliteration?)
and grants the offending member a divorce.
Big deal?
It is, actually.
What if someone doesn't like the King James
Bible's account of homosexuality? You know,
the one where a man can't lie with another man?
So can the state step in again, and ban the KJV
bible?
And someone doesn't like the church "hierarchy"
and wants something more "inclusive." So here
we go again, the state steps in...

 

A church can do what it wishes to do — within the confines of its walls. They cannot impose religious doctrine into legal principle against their members. A church can refuse to divorce the members and even refuse to acknowledge the members divorce — they can bar the members from their congregation, but marriage is a civil institution and thus can be dissolved by the parties involved.

What do you think should happen?
The state should allow the church to dictate its members lives?
Should they allow members to murder other members under the guidelines of religion?
Alter the lives of others that do not believe the religion?
Which version of the Bible do we use?
Who’s account?
How long before we have a religious police to enforce your facist views?

Your religion isn’t special; it is no different than Scientology, The Satanic Temple, Judisiam, Mormonism, Budasim or any other religious teaching. All of them assert their version of god or a Devine entity as truth. If you don’t believe another religion should have certain special rights odds are yours shouldn’t either.

 

Thanks. I need to add something
A church might ban divorce. But it can't impose this ordinance
upon any non-member. And if a member cannot accept that law
then they should leave.
I would draw the line at allowing society to over-rule that order.
You can't stop someone from shaving their head and wearing
orange robes - but such monks can't make others conform to
their standards either.
But with "gay rights" we are seeing society step over that line.

As an aside, what will a post Christian society look like?
IMO it will be more political, ideological and tribal. And it will
be more violent, cruel and irrational.

 

How so? The only issue I have seen that could even remotely fit this narrative is in equal access to goods and services — of which I will have to disagree, it is expected that for-profit open-to-the-public entities should be treated the same across the board. We have regulations for not discriminating on the basis of religious belief, color, gender — I see no difference in orientation.

In what ways do you believe society stepping over a line?

To argue that the only thing that keeps people from being cruel or violent is, well, quite frankly absurd. There is no evidence to suggest this and the inverse has actually been found in several studies. Most of the contentious and controversial issues are found divided by religious leanings — if anything I think a post religious society will be able to focus on actual physical issues instead of issues that are founded in fear, emotion and manipulation.

 

These figures prove my point. We are creating a society which is toxic.
2001-2015 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:

Gay lesbian 40 to 63%.
Baby outside marriage 45 to 61%.
Casual sex 53 to 68%.
Divorce 59 to 71%.
Polygamy 7 to 16%.
Doctor suicide 49 to 56%.
Personal suicide13 to 19%.
Gambling 63 to 67%.
Abortion 42 to 45%.
Married men having affairs 7 to 8%.

 

Sorry, you believe that marriage equality has been achieved don't you? Well how can that be unless every single person's definition of marriage has been recognised in law?