By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Pemalite on 18 January 2019
Rightling said:

But you are judging a pedophile based on their sexual orientation, right?

No. I am not judging them on that. Their actions are blatantly illegal and damaging to others.

Rightling said:

What if they were just born that way, they have no choice being attracted to children. I'm not comparing the morality, I'm saying that we do judge people. You find pedophiles morally wrong and homosexuality okay but to a lot of other people, homosexuality is just as disgusting. They don't care that it's two adults or that it's legal. 

Your argument is silly.
Pedophiles are held to a different standard because they destroy/damage/harm other peoples lives.

Even if they were hypothetically born that way... It would ultimately be irrelevant, no one has the right to destroy, damage or harm others.

Rightling said:

In any case, I don't think a business should be forced to provide a service by the government. If it was a vital service like health care, electricity or internet, that would be different. The less the government is involved in guiding morality, the better.

In any case, the angle you are trying to take is going to end here, pedophiles isn't what the discussion is about.

NightlyPoe said:

No, you are interpreting the Bible as you see it.  There are literally hundreds of Christian denominations each with their own interpretation of the text which breaks down even further to the reading of the individual leader and further to the individual reader of the texts.  Not everyone will come to the same conclusion you just did.

The thing is... I am not interpreting the Bible, I am parroting what it states in black and white. - To re-interpret the Bible would be to take an apologetic view and discard it's anti-divorce stance.
The original Bible (Which is based upon the Torah anyway) is what all denominations are derived from.

Matthew 5:31-32. "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
...And we know what the 10 commandments are right?

Don't forget verses Luke 16:18, Corinthians 7:39, Hebrews 13:4, Romans 7:3 and probably a heap more.


NightlyPoe said:

You actually are imposing if you're using the power of government to establish your reading as the correct interpretation an nullifying the freedoms surrounding it because it's "hypocritical".

Not really.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 18 January 2019

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite on 19 January 2019
NightlyPoe said:

It most certainly is not black and white.  Theologians have been debating the Bible's interpretation of divorce for centuries.  Just a quick internet search shows there is much discussion and interpreting of the passage you brought up.

If theologians wish to argue various topics of the Bible... Then that is up to them.
I have already provided a passage from the Bible which proves the Bible in it's plain black-and-white non-re-interpreted stance... Is against divorce... And that is really all there is to it.

NightlyPoe said:

But, again, this is you telling other people that there's apparently one true Christian faith.  And it's being handed down by someone who doesn't believe any of for personally, but likely read it off of a skeptics guide somewhere.

No. This is me saying... I don't care about anyone's Christian faith, if I pick up a religious book and it says something... Then that is what says.

I am not going to change my stance or vernacular in order to avoid upsetting someone, their religious views coming into conflict with the real world is their problem.

NightlyPoe said:

You're not in favor of using the government for those means?

I am in favor of the Government doing allot of things.
I am in multiple Government agencies that protects life, property and the environment.

I can tell you what I don't support... And that is religious indoctrination, things should be taught on the basis of evidence/science.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

sethnintendo on 19 January 2019

Thank Odin for finally resolving this major issue for society. I can finally go to sleep at night.



sethnintendo on 19 January 2019
NightlyPoe said:
sethnintendo said:
Thank Odin for finally resolving this major issue for society. I can finally go to sleep at night.

Sorry to inform you that it's not resolved at all.

Damnit...  Now I'm going to lose sleep.  Fuck it where is this gay couple.  I'll send them a damn cake.  It's going to be ice cream cake because everyone knows ice cream cake (pure ice cream with no cake) is the best cake.



Pemalite on 19 January 2019
NightlyPoe said:

As I said, your interpretation is only one of what that passage means.  It is not "black and white" and repeating how a section that has already been translated out of its original language and can be best understood within the cultural context of 1st Century Jews living in a specific area only has one possible meaning will not make it so.

There is only one interpretation. - The rest are apologetic points of view to twist it so it means something else to fit another narrative.
What the Bible says in black and white is undeniable and I have already provided all the evidence necessary, making your argument pretty superfluous at this point in time.

NightlyPoe said:

That is your opinion.  However, you cannot use the government to impose that view on others, which is the problem here.

Basically, it appears that you think the 1st Amendment should be gutted and people's rights be taken away because you value something else above it.  That would make you pretty much the type of person the 1st Amendment was designed to protect against.

Rubbish. I fully comprehend there are many denominations.
I fully support Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion... Thus making your argument entirely pointless as well.

As for the 1st Amendment, it doesn't apply to me, I am not American... But let's argue for arguments sake.

The first Amendment establishes that: "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."

Yet the US Congress/President/Government have constantly made rules and law based around "Christian Values". - The entire same-sex marriage debate was built around that remember.
Perhaps the US Government should try being a little more secular?

And obviously this has a flow-on effect to incidents like the Baker, which is why if this happened in say... A more progressive and secular state of Europe, the results would have been far far far different.

NightlyPoe said:

I'll tell you a secret:

They don't want cake.  What they really want the baker's scalp.

Good for them too. Everyone has a right to use the legal system in the US if they feel they have been wronged, do they not?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
MrWayne on 19 January 2019

It does not matter if the baker's beliefs are in line with what the bible says or not. Everyone can believe in what they want, regardless of whether a "holy" book supports their faith or not.
The real problem at hand is that we have to judge what's more important, the bakers right to discriminate people based on his ethics/morals or the consumers right to not be discriminated.



MrWayne on 19 January 2019
NightlyPoe said:
MrWayne said:
It does not matter if the baker's beliefs are in line with what the bible says or not. Everyone can believe in what they want, regardless of whether a "holy" book supports their faith or not.
The real problem at hand is that we have to judge what's more important, the bakers right to discriminate people based on his ethics/morals or the consumers right to not be discriminated.

Discrimination is a bit of a loaded term.  The baker is fully willing to sell his wares to gay couples.  If he were simply tossing them all out of his store, he would surely lose.  The question is whether it is okay for the government to force him to design and create things that go against his beliefs.

And to be sure, bakers refuse customer requests for things that go against their beliefs all the time.  Erotic cakes, cakes with racist messages, or even simple generic party logos are routinely turned down without controversy across the country.

I agree that discrimination is not completely the right term for what I tried to describe but I don't know a better english word for what I want to say.

I also acknowledge that I don't know how this could be legislated in a better way because I also think that there are different situations where it's totally fine for the baker to refuse requests.

But there are ways to react to this outside of legislation and my reaction is "fuck that bigot".



Pemalite on 19 January 2019
NightlyPoe said:

Saying so will not make it so I'm afraid.

If it says written in the book in plain black and white, it's there in black and white, you can't change it... It's literally an Ancient piece of scripture that dates back thousands of years, you don't get to change the narrative to suit an agenda over night.

Heck, I could start to list all the other evil parts of the bible as well... It really is a terrible book, just like the other Abrahamic, Middle-Eastern Religious books. Aka. Torah and Quran.

NightlyPoe said:

I actually hadn't mentioned denominations in that quote...

But you do seem to be having difficulty comprehending that concept when you say things like "there is only one interpretation".

Go back a few posts in that particular Quote thread, it stems back to denominations.


NightlyPoe said:
The two concepts are simply not compatible.  The government cannot impose your implied freedom from religion without trampling on Freedom of Religion.

False. I live in a secular nation where both are compatible on a daily basis.

You see, the religious are allowed to believe whatever they desire, but they aren't allowed to instill their religious doctrine on others.

NightlyPoe said:
Making laws based on Christian values does not violate the 1st Amendment.  It establishes no religion or prevent free exercise.  Minority religions are historically robust today and enjoy strong government protections.  However, Legislators are allowed to bring their own values to the table when making laws and voters are allowed to bring their values to the table when they vote.

What would be violating the 1st Amendment would be declaring that they can't.  Additionally, it is folly to think that any law does not have some secular reasoning behind it.

As for whether the US Government should be more secular, that's a pure point of opinion.  Demanding a more secular government as a function of the 1st Amendment would likely quash religion in this country when there has been a tradition going back to colonial days of religious vibrancy and diversity as a key component of the country's promise.  A promise that the 1st Amendment did more to enshrine than anything else.

The current attack on Islam (Even by Congress) by the far right isn't really exercising freedom of religion and I would assume comes into conflict with the 1st amendment.

 

NightlyPoe said:

Have they been wronged though?  Or do they just want to hurt a person in a power play?  The baker has been sanctioned by the same body again.  This time by a person who called them up to basically troll them about a transgender coming out cake on the same day that the decision was announced.  The only purpose of the call was to obviously start the process over again because the Supreme Court did not put the issue to rest.

Basically, it's not a redress of a wrong.  It's basic lawfare to destroy this guy.

Doesn't matter if someone has been wronged? The Legal system is there to test precedents, not for some random people on the internet to decide if it is right or wrong.
Everyone has the right to use the legal system at any time or place.

NightlyPoe said:
MrWayne said:
It does not matter if the baker's beliefs are in line with what the bible says or not. Everyone can believe in what they want, regardless of whether a "holy" book supports their faith or not.
The real problem at hand is that we have to judge what's more important, the bakers right to discriminate people based on his ethics/morals or the consumers right to not be discriminated.

Discrimination is a bit of a loaded term.  The baker is fully willing to sell his wares to gay couples.  If he were simply tossing them all out of his store, he would surely lose.  The question is whether it is okay for the government to force him to design and create things that go against his beliefs.

And to be sure, bakers refuse customer requests for things that go against their beliefs all the time.  Erotic cakes, cakes with racist messages, or even simple generic party logos are routinely turned down without controversy across the country.

The Baker is only willing to sell SOME products/services, not all like he would to others, which is where discrimination comes into play.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DrDoomz on 20 January 2019

Permalite: I think what NightlyPoe is trying to say is that those passages weren’t originally written in english and certain words/phrases can have multiple interpretations and meanings based on its context within the language, culture and the time period it was written. It was translated into a different language to fit a modern society/culture in a modern context that is easily understood. It is highly unlikely that a single translation would get both the context and the spirit of a passage absolutely right.