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'

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.



Around the Network
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".



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}::--

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.