Why We’ll Never Bake Your Fake ‘Wedding’ Cake

so you are intent of misrepresenting what I have said.

For the record, and easily shown in my comments, I have said that a person cannot be sent to jail for their religious beliefs, they can be sent to jail for non-payment of fines due to discrimination which violates public accommodation laws .. but of course you know this and instead of actually admitting you are wrong you attempt to cover your failure by running away.

 

You understand basic biology, congratulations. How is that relevant?

Those misguided individuals who refuse to pay the fine will be subject to bigger fines, until they're eventually summoned to court over it.

The intent of the fourteenth amendment was universal protections for all Americans. Surely they didn't anticipate the LGBT rights movement, but the entire amendment was intentionally worded so that it could be used by future movements, rather than requiring an entirely new amendment. If it only applied to race, it would say so..

Your comment on heterophobia, while every bit as caustic as you intended, has failed to make a meaningful point.

 

Sure, the crying has been mutual for as long as I can remember but hey, lets not be honest about it. Your own post on this forum will back up what is reality.

 

True.

If a person has a sincerely held belief human sacrifice is necessary as part of their religion, and sacrifices a human -- they are not held culpable because of their religion, they are tried on murder.

Because: Law.

- - - Updated - - -

Bet they never imagined the 14th Amendment would be used as it was in Bush v Gore.

(what a travesty!)

 

IF your government ever tried to force a religious institution to perform SSM I would be one of the first to say it is 100% wrong.

 

I know that, you know that, it seems most logical people know that .. of course that doesn't include some of the posters here.

 

And he'll ignore this -- like he does most everything that squashes him like a bug.

Let's hear from that raging liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs. - Employment Division v. Smith

 

Again misrepresentation, no one is favouring prison for Christians, we are favouring people abiding by the law, specifically in this case public accommodation laws as it would be for any other person who discriminates including homosexuals.

Let's flip this around, a homosexual baker sells cakes to the public, a Christian comes in and wants a cake for his sons Christening, the homosexual baker refuses because his belief is that Christians are evil and it violates his homosexual churches beliefs, that homosexual baker should be charged under public accommodation laws, and if he refuses to pay the fine his property should be taken to the value of the fine and/or he should go to jail.

You attempt to make this about a person religious beliefs is disingenuous at the least and just outright BS at the most.

correct, the law is not a game and it is there in black and white in public accommodation laws that a for profit business that sells a service to the public CANNOT discriminate against a select group of people due to their gender, orientation, colour etc etc. Here read it for yourself - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

It was taken off because the weight of evidence showed it was not a mental disorder.

 

Ugh...this again.

Two things are absent from this APA reclassification some of the knuckle-dragging anti-homosexuals use to bolster what they think is an argument:

They apparently believe the top psychiatrists in the field were incapable of making sensible, informed decisions about an area in which they specialize and spend a great deal of time studying and interacting with patients. They have this sense professionals and doctors would not look at the science, all their data and dealings with the matter and forgo their reputations and discipline in the field to concede to noisy rabbles. The only answer for them is: those doctors must have been 'bullied.'

Also - When discussing this change in classification to “not a disorder” back in 73, what isn't discussed is why it was first classified as a disorder in the first place.

Go back into the history of the study of psychiatry and methods used back then - heck, we only have to go back a few more decades and recall for homosexuality, some forms of depression and certain maladies, they were drilling holes in people's skulls, they were taking out full sections of their brains, butchering their frontal lobes, they were attaching electric nodes to their heads and electrocuting people in attempts to cure.

The evidence was seen, eventually, this did not work. Science, of course, is a process of trial and error and learning.

It was in the 19th century homosexuality was originally put in the APA's classification as a mental illness. The 19th century. I can't help but wonder if some of these folks who so vehemently rail against homosexuality are still stuck there. The APA moved out, they didn't.

Masturbation was once classified as a disorder and a cause of mental illness.

When they changed THAT classification, I wonder how many sad souls inhaled a great sigh of relief or did they strike out at the APA for having the audacity - the sheer gall - at reclassifying what would make most of us "disordered" today.

Science. Blessed science.

 

Nah, he'll just put you on ignore after some irrelevant comment .. I call it the Ostrich syndrome.

 

I favor court action to make people pay fines for discriminatory business practices. Don't make me out to be worse than Hitler over that. Hell, I'm dating a Catholic. Granted, she's a bisexual Catholic that disagrees with the Vatican on many issues, but my issue clearly is not with religion itself.

The law is only language, and language is only the interpretation of the masses.

Homophobia exists. People are subject to discrimination, hated, traumatized, etc. Gay bashing was the pastime of thugs everywhere until recently, and I mean bashing in the sense of brutal and heinous beating. Sexual orientation's status in the DSM is no longer relevant because that mistake has been corrected. Medicine advances. Do you think we should go back to lobotomy?

 

You don't get special rights not to be sued, or above the law status because you are Christian.

If laws are causing a conflict with your beliefs, I don't see how that's anyone's problem but yours.

 

The last ditch effort of these folks is to spin this into some sort of implied hatred toward Christians.

Nobody is ever really going to face any legal threat because of their beliefs. It's only actions. Actions aren't religious.

 

Christians are not immune from being targeted either. If you can use the law to make a buck and
drive a Christian out of business, why not?

 

and if Christians are being targeted ie having services offered to others and not to them just because they are Christians then IMO that is as bad as Christian not offering services to homosexuals that they offer to others just because they are homosexuals.

You keep making this false equivalence fallacy by assuming the premise that the reason these people are being driven out of business is for being Christian, that is not the case, they are being sued and prosecuted for breaking public accommodation laws which has nothing to do with their religious beliefs ... but there again you have to in order to play the victim card.

 

You can stop being a Christian at any time. Sexual orientation, however, is permanent.

 

To be fair, you can stop "behaving like a homosexual at any time", just as a christian can "stop behaving like a christian at any time". The question is where it is appropriate to assert it. Law (in many places) requires non-discrimination in businesses open to the public. Homosexuals, in other words, should not be able to discriminate against christian customers, and Christians should not be able to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

I believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service without being punished. Business transactions should be considered at will interactions, and should not be forced.

The only exception to this rule should be for grocery stores, housing, doctors, drug stores, and other things which are necessities.

The thing is, a business not serving gay couples does nothing. There are other businesses that will. It's not like the couple HAS to use them. The business owner just loses money, from the people refused and from others who choose to boycott their business over the refusals.

What is going on how is that gay marriage advocates are wanting to punish business owners for not agreeing with them.

 

The new black doesn't refer to blacks but to basic black as a color. Black goes with anything.

 

Why don't you get that that is irrelevant? Your religious beliefs do NOT get to make our laws. Period. You don't like that, but that's tough (*)(*)(*)(*). We are not a theocracy. Take your religion and shove it.

 

Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you are that YOUR religion ought to control society? That's not how things work here.

 

Hopefully you.

 

There is no point in arguing with these types of people. So all that you can do is mock them.

Like this...

Aww, poor.Christians don't get to be exempt from laws and hold special rights. It must be hard.

 

What if you are bi-sexual? You can change on a dime.

 

Gays are one percent of the population and don't get to make the laws for the other 99%. Our laws are based in Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.

Christianity will be here long after there is a treatment or cure for homosexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people have to target Christians? If you want a cake, go somewhere else.