• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

Grand Mal said:
It's not a legitimate religious issue for Christians to object to lesbians. It's a moral judgement. Far as I know. Do you know where in the Bible female homosexuality is proscribed? Leviticus and Paul only mention men, far as I know.
Click to expand...

Romans 1:26–27



26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Sexual immorality is mentioned throughout the Bible.
 
If it comes down to a different 1A issue, such as artistic expression then that's different IMO.

Would we demand a Jewish baker create a cake with a swastika on it?

We have an erotic bakery in Seattle that makes some very explicit cake designs...should other bakers be forced to create such designs?

And btw, I completely call bull**** on religion as an excuse here, but I'm mentioning another aspect (and not one I came up with).
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
Romans 1:26–27



26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Sexual immorality is mentioned throughout the Bible.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just Paul's opinion, and it's been changed, apparently, from the King James Version, which says, "...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:". And that falls short of homosexuality.
So do you think an interpretation of a Bible verse should be the basis of a legal judgement? What I say my religion says is now the law? Because that's what the judge did.
 
WCH said:
BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs. Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation. Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

snip...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory
Click to expand...

Tyranny?

Silly Americans have no idea what actual tyranny looks like. Americans have it so nice and cozy that you call this tyranny? American people need to study what tyrannical regimes and governments actually look like.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's not a legitimate religious issue for Christians to object to lesbians. It's a moral judgement. Far as I know. Do you know where in the Bible female homosexuality is proscribed? Leviticus and Paul only mention men, far as I know.
Click to expand...

The bible doesn't say to not engage in business with sinners or anything like that.
 
WCH said:
Judicial tyranny.
Click to expand...

Nope, no sort of tyranny at all. It's truly pathetic how Christians, who once faced actual tyranny, have been reduced to wailing and crying "tyranny" when they can't tell others what to do.
 
Can't gays and lesbians just buy a fruit cake already made?
 
All I have to say is that it's sad that the courts have to rule on things that could be easily settled between people if there were mutual decency and respect.

Instead, each state is going to have its own version of this battle, culminating in a SCOTUS case where the Fed has to decide if someone can refuse to bake a wedding cake.

How low we have sunk. The government has become our parents.
 
WCH said:
BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs. Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation. Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

snip...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory
Click to expand...

You know there are same sex couples who when they are refused a wedding cake, they just go to a different baker. Just because something gets a lot of media representation when a few people do it does not mean most people in that group do it.
 
camlok said:
I'm talking about the evil people who, under the guise of kind and generous christians, have for centuries been causing the deaths of untold numbers who have been beaten, shot and who knows what else for simply being who they were - gays, lesbians, ... .

That doesn't even begin to address the centuries long support of these same evil people taking an active role in the genocide against Native Americans/First Nations peoples.
Click to expand...

Ah-ha!

So the actual actions that are actually committed by an individual in the real world today are only a part of his crime.

He also needs to be punished for any and all other acts from all of history that you feel are not just.

Is that about it?

I thought that our legal system was based on what a particular individual does. Are you recommending that if a child is born to a drunk, they should never be allowed to drive?

If a child has a father with a record of abuse, should that child be banned from contact with the kind of folks the abuser abused?

Seems harsh...

Does your "Inherited Guilt" apply to all actions? Can a person gain positive recognition and exoneration from his society's history as well?

Your model seems illogical to me in terms of responsibility.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, I am. Most, if not all, the abuses perpetrated in the name of religion have happened because somebody gave himself authority to interpret what the Bible 'really' means.
I think that judge made the wrong decision. If the bakery wants to object on moral grounds, fine. They should be honest and say so and they might get what they wanted. If they bring bullsh*t into the courtroom about it being a religious issue, they deserve to lose the case.
Click to expand...

I think the BS they brought to the courtroom was that it was a Freedom of Speech issue.

In Grade School I and my generation, were taught that your right to swing your arm ended where my nose stated.

On a different topic though, what was the injury the Lesbian couple incurred? I can see no injury incurred by the ladies who wanted to buy the cake.

They asked for a cake. The proprietor said they did not make that cake. They advised the buyer where the desired cake could be purchased.

Assume the Lesbian couple wanted to buy a car. They enter a Ford New Car Dealership and ask to buy a Chevy. They are informed that Chevies are sold down the street.

Is the Lesbian couple thereby entitled to sue the Ford Motor Company because they don't offer Chevrolets for sale? What is the injury in either case?

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)
 
camlok said:
You totally avoid the ACTUAL issue! It is discrimination that is at issue here. Who would your putative bakers be discriminating against, the icing?

You want religious people, the ones who have been responsible for so much evil, to have the same right as everyone else. So too, should LGBT folks have the same rights as everyone else - to love who they wish.
Click to expand...

You are saying that "religious people" who are alive today are to be punished for every crime ever committed by any other person who claimed to be religious?

Should all people who claim a connection with a particular group be punished for every crime committed by groups with which they are associated?

YOU seem to be doing EXACTLY the thing that you reject when done by the folks your derisively brand as "religious people".

Is compulsive bias bad only when it hurts groups YOU like?

The formerly unprotected rights of those on the fringes of our society were not left unprotected by the group you hate as "religious people".

They were left unprotected by our courts. This is true when discussing any fringe or minority group you care to name. Now you assert a right of one or all of these groups to dictate the actions of any another group, great or small.

Isn't that precisely what you are arguing against?
 
molten_dragon said:
Because she's a bigot.
Click to expand...

The customer was told that the product sought was not produced and was directed to a place where the product was produced.

Would you be as outraged by the action of the baskers if a Nazi White Supremacist had asked for a cake celebrating that way of life and was turned away?

I consider decorating a cake to be an art form created by artists. I couldn't do it. Could you?

This artist is asserting the right to create art they are inspired to create. THAT is the Freedom of Speech issue.

The Lesbian Couple incurred no injury. They got their cake.

If the Lesbian Couple had entered the shop and ordered a rocket to launch a communication satellite and were directed to see Elon Musk, would that also be an offense to your sensibilities?

The Bakery does not sell the product that was ordered. THAT is the commerce issue. They don't sell it to anyone regardless of of anything.
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, that's just Paul's opinion, and it's been changed, apparently, from the King James Version, which says, "...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:". And that falls short of homosexuality.
So do you think an interpretation of a Bible verse should be the basis of a legal judgement? What I say my religion says is now the law? Because that's what the judge did.
Click to expand...

Because we have to answer to our Maker...yep.

There are laws against religious discrimination also.

Regardless, it was sexual immorality.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Nope, no sort of tyranny at all. It's truly pathetic how Christians, who once faced actual tyranny, have been reduced to wailing and crying "tyranny" when they can't tell others what to do.
Click to expand...

The judge mentioned that. Don't know if he's Christian or not but, it shouldn't affect his decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom