• 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’

CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Others go to the "Shepard's Guide" and go down the list looking for "offenders"
 
code1211 said:
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?

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?
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Being a nazi is a choice. Being gay is not.

The couple did not ask the baker to make something she was incapable of making. They asked her to make a cake, something she makes on a regular basis.

I absolutely support the baker's legal right not to make a cake for the couple. But that doesn't mean I agree with her actions. It doesn't mean I support them. And it doesn't mean she's not a bigoted asshole.
 
molten_dragon said:
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Being a nazi is a choice. Being gay is not.

The couple did not ask the baker to make something she was incapable of making. They asked her to make a cake, something she makes on a regular basis.

I absolutely support the baker's legal right not to make a cake for the couple. But that doesn't mean I agree with her actions. It doesn't mean I support them. And it doesn't mean she's not a bigoted asshole.
Click to expand...

"Doesn't mean" is not proof of "is".

The first amendment protects expressing unpopular ideas as well as popular ones.

Protecting the right of the bakers to make the cakes they wish to make is all I endorse.
 
Grand Mal said:
I'm not telling anyone how to live. I'm just objecting to bullsh*t. It's not a religious objection- there's nothing in the Bible about lesbians. It's a moral judgement. If they want to refuse to serve someone on moral grounds, fine, just don't give us crap about religion, like God told them not to serve lesbians.
If I was the judge I'd rule against them just on that basis. Be honest about it and you might get what you want. Bring bullsh*t into a courtroom and you deserve to be shot down.
Click to expand...

No, the courtroom is not the place where religious doctrine is determined. It is where justice is decided and rights defended. One of the rights you have is to practice your faith in any manner you see fit. Demanding that a Jewish baker create a cake celebrating the holocaust or a black baker create a cake for a Klan rally has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the concept of rights; specifically, the rights of the baker. It is one thing to insist that a business open to the public serve all who enter, but it is another thing altogether to demand one individual to CREATE something for another. Would it not be tyrannical to compel a Jewish artist to paint a portrait of Hitler for a neo-Nazi fund raiser? Rights extend to all people. Not just the pressure groups on the left.
 
molten_dragon said:
Literally everyone involved in this story is an asshole.
Click to expand...

Find out what the word 'literally' means. It will be worth the trouble as you will then be able to join in the laughter at those who misuse it.
 
WCH said:
The judge mentioned that. Don't know if he's Christian or not but, it shouldn't affect his decision.
Click to expand...

Actually, the habit of some to cry tyranny whenever they don’t get their way is something any judge should take into account.
 
Sweden said:
Find out what the word 'literally' means. It will be worth the trouble as you will then be able to join in the laughter at those who misuse it.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of what it means and used it correctly.
 
code1211 said:
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)
Click to expand...

I'm okay with all that. I just have a problem with the judge's decision seemingly being based on religion.
 
WCH said:
Because we have to answer to our Maker...yep.

There are laws against religious discrimination also.

Regardless, it was sexual immorality.
Click to expand...

I understand laws against religious discrimination. I understand being free to not do something just because somebody asks you to. My problem is with the judge ruling as he did because of what somebody says their religion says. That's a can of worms, my opinion.
 
Fletch said:
No, the courtroom is not the place where religious doctrine is determined. It is where justice is decided and rights defended. One of the rights you have is to practice your faith in any manner you see fit. Demanding that a Jewish baker create a cake celebrating the holocaust or a black baker create a cake for a Klan rally has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the concept of rights; specifically, the rights of the baker. It is one thing to insist that a business open to the public serve all who enter, but it is another thing altogether to demand one individual to CREATE something for another. Would it not be tyrannical to compel a Jewish artist to paint a portrait of Hitler for a neo-Nazi fund raiser? Rights extend to all people. Not just the pressure groups on the left.
Click to expand...

I'm okay with that, if it's put in those terms. But the judge's decision was based on what somebody said their religion says. How can the law be consistent when there's so many ways to interpret what the Bible says? Or is the law different, according to which church you attend?
 
molten_dragon said:
Her actions are all the proof I need.
Click to expand...

The irony of this is rich.

You are predisposed to judgmentally condemn Christians.

You call them bigots and they would be tempted to call you the same. Might be restrained by the dictates of their faith, but there you are.

Interesting...
 
Grand Mal said:
I'm okay with all that. I just have a problem with the judge's decision seemingly being based on religion.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, there is a whole bunch or our government oand our society that is based religion.

Like the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
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...

Judge is an idiot and probably biased... it is not surprising that Judges are kinda scummy and have biases...
 
code1211 said:
Like it or not, there is a whole bunch or our government oand our society that is based religion.

Like the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. But how can the law be applied consistently if Joe's religion, or his interpretation of it, allows him to do something but Joan's interpretation of the same religion says she can't do the same thing? Doesn't the law need to be the same for everyone?
See, my beef is with the judge making his ruling based on the religion of the baker. The baker objected on religious grounds.So now, with that precedent, everyone is free to treat anyone else however they want if they can justify it based on the scripture of their religion. Is that gonna work when a Muslim taxi driver refuses to drive an unescorted woman somewhere?
 
code1211 said:
You are predisposed to judgmentally condemn Christians.
Click to expand...

Calling a rose a rose is not judgmentally condemning Christians. Bigoted actions don't magically become not bigoted because they're performed by a religious person.
 
Grand Mal said:
I understand laws against religious discrimination. I understand being free to not do something just because somebody asks you to. My problem is with the judge ruling as he did because of what somebody says their religion says. That's a can of worms, my opinion.
Click to expand...

Is that really relevant? There is scripture to back it up.
 
WCH said:
Is that really relevant? There is scripture to back it up.
Click to expand...

Like I said elsewhere here, how will that fly when a Muslim cab driver refuses to take an unescorted woman somewhere?
I say the judge made a mistake when he worded his decision in religious terms. He could have made the same decision for secular reasons.
 
Judges, Morals and religion aside,, Would you actually eat a cake that you forced someone to make for you??

Back in the mid 70's I met a guy who worked in a bakery, The bride came in and was generally a bitch.. The bakers had a circle jerk in the cake batter...

All the baker had to do was say, We charge extra for "Special" cakes.. That will be $10K please..

Me? Some one does not want to server/make something for me? I am outta there, they don't want my money, I will find someone that does.

djl
 
WCH said:
Kind of like those Lesbians.
Click to expand...

Except “those lesbians” have been genuinely oppressed for decades, and you lot have not. There is no equivalence here.
 
Grand Mal said:
Like I said elsewhere here, how will that fly when a Muslim cab driver refuses to take an unescorted woman somewhere?
I say the judge made a mistake when he worded his decision in religious terms. He could have made the same decision for secular reasons.
Click to expand...

I see your point.

FWIW, Somali cabdrivers in MN refused to allow people with dogs or alcohol in the vehicles. Not sure if this went to court.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2007-04-04-voa62/404177.html
 
Tigerace117 said:
Except “those lesbians” have been genuinely oppressed for decades, and you lot have not. There is no equivalence here.
Click to expand...
Christians have been the victims of tyranny since before they were called Christians. But, you're right Christians aren't deviants.
 
WCH said:
I see your point.

FWIW, Somali cabdrivers in MN refused to allow people with dogs or alcohol in the vehicles. Not sure if this went to court.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2007-04-04-voa62/404177.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, all it needs is for some mishap to happen because the driver refused to carry soeone and the **** will hit the fan.
I can understand the dogs, especially if the driver owns the car but carrying alcohol? If they're leaving a bar and now decide, hell with it I'll just drive, that cabbie could be in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom