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

Homosexuality was mainstreamed about a decade and a half ago. I learned that when I found out my grandpa liked Will and Grace.

 

For some and you're still trying with the nonsensical arguments.

 

I think history says otherwise, there are always the exceptions and disputed claims as is yours.

 

You're the one arguing that marriage only ever had one meaning. And that language shouldn't change

 

If history says otherwise...

But there are exceptions...

Then you cannot say always.



Well you can, but that would make you a liar

 

Well of language doesn't change, then he should be supporting gay marriage.

 

Lol. Good point however marriage was never supposed to be merry. It was a custom to unite two families. Making it about love is undermining its meaning.

 

thats just taking the second one out of context. Wearing colored clothing was only a problem because at the time clothing color was very symbolic. If certain colors were worn you could be broadcasting that you were pagan

 

That's them making a statement. By asking you to bake a cake they are trying to force you to make the statement.

 

The only reason they said anything against people of the same sex having relations it's because they were outnumbered and in order to increase the might of the tribe you had to increase the population. Most Christians these days don't live in tribes that are largely just 3-7 families they live in Nations that as part of their national identity enshrine religion to some degree. There is also a much lower infant mortality rate and a much lower child mortality rate.

So we don't really need all young veril men and women breeding as much as possible.

You're still cherry picking but you're doing it based on what you want to apply now.

 

Change the cross to a satanic symbol then. Or better yet, swap the individuals. Let’s assume the baker was gay and a Christian wanted a standard cake celebrating... whatever they celebrate. The baker refusing because of their religion is currently illegal.

Baking a cake does not make a statement. If they would have said put the words “I support gay marraige” or even demanded a male-male topper I would agree with you.

But they didn’t. It was a standard cake.

 

The bible also says very little about homosexuality, especially monogamous homosexuality when the passages are viewed in context and using original translations.

It talks a lot about worshiping money and church’s over god, doing good deeds, and love of your fellow man. And that women should be subservient and don’t eat shellfish...

 

I think it's worse than that. I think it's thought control. They have to look pretty hard to find people that own a small business that would turn down paying customers. That's pretty suicidal for a small business like a bakery. But these people are out there. I think they're dim witted morons to think that providing a normal wedding cake to a gay couple is somehow condoning something. But I do think people have the right to be stupid. Idiots should be free to run their businesses into the ground whatever way they see fit.

And if providing trinkets or taking pictures in this cold porridge these Dimwits think is their brain is somehow endorsing sin, I support their right to run their business into the ground.

I can disagree with people I can suggest that they're idiots that they're stupid that someone has scooped out their mind and replaced it with cold moldy porridge. But even idiots that think really stupid things should be allowed to think whatever backward nonsense they want. Because I support freedom of thought.

You might think I'm an a****** for ridiculing these people. But that's really the point I'm making I don't really care. But I'm free to think what I want. I shouldn't be punished and I shouldn't be fined and I shouldn't lose my ability to operate a business because if it.

This is an effort to control thought. To punish people for thinking things that are unacceptable to whoever names themselves the moral authority.

 

the major passage that people always site is Leviticus 18:22. I've actually come across multiple biblical scholars that think homosexuality is sinful that will say that refers is referring to the practice of using Temple prostitutes. The practice of using Temple prostitutes was a pagan practice. And not using them was a way for Hebrews to differentiate themselves from pagans.

So it's even the same context that he's using to justify wearing clothing of different color.

you would have a point if you were talking about Hebrews but in the covenant of Christ it isn't wrong to eat shellfish or pork. Women are still subservient, and whether you're Christian atheist Hindu or Jedi, I would think that having love for your fellow man doing good deeds is a plus.

 

You don't have to make a cake with a cross on it if it violates your beliefs.

 

I didn’t say you did. I said you can not deny them services because of their religious preferences.

 

That's another one of those things that varied across cultures and and even classes. Lower class people could marry for love easier than higher class people. Just more emphasis that there is no one true definition of marriage.

 

I imagine marriage in lower classes in various cultures occurred upon consummation and likely didn't involve any ceremony.

 

Actually yes. Ceremonies were a upper class/nobility thing back then. No certificates either, so if you said you were married that was it.

 

So that is exactly what you are saying. You couldn't say you weren't going to serve Christians or gays or anything but you could decline a special request to make a statement on a piece of art.

 

But not allowing relatives (blood or step) to marry DOES fall under those categories?

 

You mean THE definition according to Christianity?

 

Did you ask this before and I not respond to it? It looks familiar, but I haven't had a lot of time lately between holidays and my son's wedding this past weekend to touch on the deeper threads.

And no, the relations category is not covered under the 14th, and apologies if I implied that. That said, I still maintain that marriage equality will not be achieved until such restrictions are gone. In our system, we don't make things legal, save maybe in the context of them having been made previously illegal. Before Prohibition, we didn't make alcohol legal. But to make something illegal to the general population, there must be a compelling reason to do so.

Now we have to make a little side step here. Establishing a legal structure or institution, is not the same as making something legal. Marriage is like that, the legal version. There is nothing that compels the law to establish such an institution, nor is there anything that forbids it.

That said, if such a legal institution is established, it needs to be accessible to all, and without the 14th restrictions violated. Don't respond yet, read the rest. Once it is established that legal marriage exists, then the government needs compelling reasons to place any other types of restrictions upon it. Logistics can be a compelling reason to establish, or even maintain (despite an invalid reason having initiate the restriction), any restrictions. Thus number of participants within each legal marriage can be a legitimate restriction. And indeed it is one that can be changed. So the government can next up the limit of spouses within a marriage to three, and maybe later to four, and so on.

Since there is no established requirement for children or even sex within the context of legal marriage, then there is no compelling reason for denying any adult, regardless of what prior relationship exists before the marriage, the legal institution of marriage.

 

I'm pretty sure that's right.

Yes, but only until your personal definition has been recognised. However you want to explain your reasoning for your definition and why you wouldn't go even further, the fact remains that other people will have their own definitions. Remember, this is about EQUALITY! (or at least that's what the same-sex marriage campaigners told us!)

What system DOES make things legal other than in the context of them having been made previously illegal?

Because of Logistics? What on earth could you possible mean by "logistics" in the context of marriage?

 

You mean Constitutional injustice. And speaking of bigotry and intolerance all one has to do is look at how many who call themselves 'Christian' are hateful, bigoted and intolerant of LGBTQ folks.