Christian Bakers Forced to Pay Nearly $137,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Up the Ante in

You don't get to speak for all Christians. There are many denominations which recognize that the bible doesn't say a single word about homosexuality, or same sex marriage.

it doesn't say a single word about baking cakes, or marrying same sex couples.

demonstrably incorrect.

 

They were not performing a Religious service; but secular and temporal, customer service.

 

FYI, The Bible does talk about cakes: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Cakes

 

I'm not claiming there is. I am simply sharing my opinion - something done often on this board.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. You'd be OK with them discriminating if they weren't making a profit?

Private property is still private property. If I own the store, I should get to decide who comes in.

- - - Updated - - -

Off-topic. This should go in the Religion forum.

 

I didn't bring up the awards given in some muslim cases, you did. All I did was point out that the gov't allowed them their religious freedom. Of which I just recently said I disagree with.
If the stories you are presenting are even accurate. My guess is there is more to the stories than is being presented, and the awards may have been for something else. Maybe they were fired for a reason that is not allowed by law.
And now you are bringing up abortion? This thread is about bakers refusing to bake a product that is in clear violation of discrimination laws in the state they got their business license in.

I don't see what point you are trying to make here.
I think you are just getting all emotional, and didn't you say you aren't even christian?

 

Isn't selling a ham sandwich not Kosher in the Jewish religion? More than likely, they would not sell ham or any other "unclean" food much like Muslims do.

 

All that passage shows is how God's mercy is on us through Grace.

 

I asked about property use limitations in a suburb (due to zoning, covenants, noise law, parking, etc.) and you gave me info about Muslims in our nation.

The problem with that is that we need to discuss the limits of religion overriding our laws.

And, I want to know about the limits as those promoting this movement in America wants them - I already know the role of the supreme court.


As the Arizona bill made very clear, there are numerous opportunities for individuals to come to the conclusion that ignoring the law is in the best interests of their religion - that religion trumps pretty much all land use law, for example.

So, what ARE the limits that people want? Are people fine with their city neighborhood neighbor changing their house into a store, restaurant or daily religious gathering place? Should the religious argument be made stronger than employment law, public accommodation law, etc. - a reversal from what has happened (including through the courts) today? Can I exclude blacks from my lunch counter, store, or publicly funded private school on the grounds of what I believe the Bible says about the origin of that skin color? Can my pharmacy sell otherwise restricted products on the grounds that they are sacraments in my religion?

I just want to know the limits of this idea that religion should trump the law.

 

they still broke the law as it is written in Oregon state constitution. the judge is to administer the law fairly and equally. I would expect the same, and it has been shown the same, that employers who discriminate pay a fine, a hefty one at that.

 

It was a little bit more involved than that. Basically, the mother and daughter met the bakers at a show and complimented them from a previous event. They talked and asked bout doing a wedding for the daughter in which the couple happily agreed. It was at the next time that the husband came and basically told them no to a wedding cake for a gay couple, stating to the mother that it was their religious belief not to bake the cake for them for the gay wedding. The gay couple sued, went to court, and the bakers lost the case.

- - - Updated - - -

that depends on how one defines "bad service."

 

This was not a "civil trial" but an administrative law trial. Besides, the 7th amendment says "in suits at Common Law" which this was not about common law.

 

Is that all? It's enough for me.

 

Exactly, they have not had their day in court. The state has brought suit against the bakers, and has now acted in away that is exactly the reason for the 7th amendment in the first place. They have a right to a trial by jury. The state does not have the right or authority to strip them of their common law rights.

 

There's what you asked. I answered by posting an example of it already happening.

 

Repentance is also needed.

James 2:14 (Phi) Now what use is it, my brothers, for a man to say he "has faith" if his actions do not correspond with it? Could that sort of faith save anyone's soul?

 

They still had their day in court though with the 7th amendment not applying here, or the 5th.

- - - Updated - - -

This passage is dealing with works and James is arguing that works does not save a person from God's wrath. You might want to read a little more in James, chapter 2

 

Yes; morals must mean more than profit.

Persons must know about the concept of public accommodation; otherwise, they are welcome to operate out of their home and with that Location.

 

I'm still interested in what the limitations would be.

In your example, the community can determine the noise levels allowed. Given the city make-up, they may choose to accommodate the calls to prayer. Some will not like that, I'm sure, but there are laws I don't like, too.


But, that is NOT the same as having one individual decide to ignore a law that the jurisdiction has established and for which there will be no democratic change.


What would be new would be for there to be a new religious right established to allow existing law to become merely advisory by any individual who decides it is counter to their personal religious interpretation.

I'm interested how much law will become advisory. That is, what are the limits to this new religious right to ignore the law?

 

The state has no right or authority to abrogate the 7th. It is a suit, brought by the state, against the bakers.

 

Such hyperbole is very unbecomming. Last time I checked, there were laws prohibiting the sale of guns to felons and terorrists. Selling cakes to homosexuals though, is still perfectly legal.

 

I have been asking that question for a very long time in this forum. Everyone likes to talk about cakes and flowers as though this new found right of the religious to treat laws as mere suggestions just stops with the roses and the frosting. I have never seen or read a single reply. I hope you have better luck.

 

What abrogation are you referring to?

 

Except that this law does not meet the requirements of the 7th amendment. In contrast, a person can voluntarily agree not to have a trial by jury.

However, with administrative law review, this is not a civil lawsuit because one is not suing or abridged common law civil liability. This was not criminal because the law was not stated as such. It was a violation of the administration of the law and that person can reserve the right to trial by jury, but the couple chose not to.

 

No, they just stack the courts.

 

It wasn't clear? Their 7th amendment right to a trial by jury.