Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

[Stu]

Some good news.

Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.

The justices' limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

More

[Philip]

This is a good ruling, as otherwise, the state would essentially be saying that the Baker's refusal, which was based upon their faith in what God's Word teaches about what marriage truly is and how they desired to stand up for that by not going along with the requested service, would otherwise be considered hateful against a segment of society. If allowed to stand, this would make people criminals for practicing their faith as they see fit. UNLESS people are truly hurting someone by how they live out their faith, they should have the freedom to do so. NO one has the right to force others to believe as they do, or to disregard their faith's tenants. Also, inconvenience is not truly harm. So, to respect how each person is allowed to live out their faith, there will necessarily be a hierarchy as to what is more important as to the rights of people and services. EVERYone can't get EVERY thing they'd like to, not and there still be the rights of people to live out their values, even if their values are different than those of others.

This is why elections matter - the high court is appointed by elected officials, per the nomination process and votes required to seat a judge. Like him or hate him, Trump may get two more picks for additional supremes.

[Kurieuo]

We were right and not just bigots afterall! D220 spat the dummy and left for no reason then.

[RickD]

We were right and not just bigots afterall! D220 spat the dummy and left for no reason then.

That's not fair Kurieuo. Danieltwotwenty left for a perfectly good reason. He's taking some time away so he can grow thicker skin.

[edwardmurphy]

And out of the woodwork come the newly emboldened bigots righteous, vindicated Christians.

[Stu]

And out of the woodwork come the newly emboldened bigots righteous, vindicated Christians.

What about the guy who kicked a man out of his coffee shop just because he was a Trump supporter? You just as outraged about that?

[RickD]

And out of the woodwork come the newly emboldened bigots righteous, vindicated Christians.

Ed,

Thanks for taking an example of a man misrepresenting Christianity, and applying it to Christians.

[edwardmurphy]

Stu - I'm not outraged, but I disagree with the decision. It was a narrow one, though, so I don't think that we're looking at an America where Christians can do whatever they feel like while hiding behind religious privilege. That's something, at least.

I'm not familiar with the coffee shop thing and I'm not going to form an opinion until I have a complete set of facts to base it on. Send me a link with the details and I'll look at it and see.

Rick - You seem to be making a No True Scotsman argument there. I think you know as well as I do that there are plenty of socially conservative Christians whose views align perfectly with the guy quoted in the article. So are you saying that none of those people represent Christianity? Last I looked there were plenty of regular posters on these very forums who don't think that liberal or moderate Christians represent Christianity, either. So whose left to speak for Christianity?

If you're thinking "nobody" then I completely agree. I think that when people preface a statement with "As a Christian I believe..." they're usually warming up to make a false claim. Nobody speaks for all Christianity and there is no "Christian viewpoint" on anything except for the most basic elements of Christian dogma. The way I see it all Christians speak for their own understanding of Christianity, and I regard them all as equally valid Christian viewpoints.

The guy in the article was speaking what he, and many like him, sincerely believe to be God's own truth. You seem to disagree with his position - perhaps due to the overt bigotry of his actions? - but I don't see how that makes his views any less Christian.

[RickD]

EdwardMurphy wrote:
Rick - You seem to be making a No True Scotsman argument there. I think you know as well as I do that there are plenty of socially conservative Christians whose views align perfectly with the guy quoted in the article. So are you saying that none of those people represent Christianity? Last I looked there were plenty of regular posters on these very forums who don't think that liberal or moderate Christians represent Christianity, either. So whose left to speak for Christianity?

I'm not making a No True Scotsman argument. You showed an article of one Christian, and then labeled christianS plural, because of what one person did.

And when a Christian doesn't allow someone in his hardware store because that person is gay, then I'm saying that Christian is misrepresenting Christianity.

Christ never taught anyone to refuse to allow gay people into their place of business. Therefore, that misrepresents Christianity.

Do Christians say and do things that misrepresent what Christ taught us to do?

Of course.

Don't blame Christ and Christianity when someone does something to misrepresent Christ. If you run a business called EdwardMurphy Electric, and an employee of yours says they won't do electrical work on someone's house because that person is gay, should I assume that person represents your beliefs or company rules, just because he is wearing the Edwardmurphy Electric uniform?

Is it fair to blame you if one of your employees misrepresents your company?

The guy in the article was speaking what he, and many like him, sincerely believe to be God's own truth. You seem to disagree with his position - perhaps due to the overt bigotry of his actions? - but I don't see how that makes his views any less Christian.

If you honestly don't see how someone who refuses to allow a gay person into his store, simply because he is gay, goes against Christianity and the teachings of Christ, then you are either a liar, or are extremely ignorant of what Christ taught.

[Kurieuo]

I recall a gay cafe.owner throwing people out simply because they had differing views re abortion. He was a complete ass, had no real justification other than a deep seated hate and prejudice.

I do not think, strongly so, that a gun should be held to the head of people making them serve others they don't want to. I hate the mentality, especially of the authoritarian left, that if people (normally those with beliefs they hate) refuse trade then they're thrown in jail or punished legally.

Ed, such is just so anti-libertarian, I'd expect if you were such you'd even defend that Christian guy being allowed to be an ass to a gay customer or whatever his prejudicial tastes are. Being an ass won't be changed by getting the government involved with their whacking stick, but rather through dialogue and social pressure. None should be forced to provide service or allow someone on their private premises,

[Stu]

Stu - I'm not outraged, but I disagree with the decision. It was a narrow one, though, so I don't think that we're looking at an America where Christians can do whatever they feel like while hiding behind religious privilege. That's something, at least.

I'm not familiar with the coffee shop thing and I'm not going to form an opinion until I have a complete set of facts to base it on. Send me a link with the details and I'll look at it and see.

Google it. You should find cases where Trump supporters were kicked out and cases where Anti-Trumpers were kicked out.

Anyway, personally I think that you should be able to serve or allow in YOUR establishment who you feel like. It's not governments place to tell you what to do.

[Philip]

Stu: Anyway, personally I think that you should be able to serve or allow in YOUR establishment who you feel like. It's not governments place to tell you what to do.

I think there are important nuances to this. Think back to the 1950s where black people almost universally could not get served in restaurants or drink from the same public fountains as whites. In small towns, where there are sometimes not a lot of certain types of services alternatives, if applied on a wide scale, this can and has seriously discriminated against minorities. Do you think that is right?

However, where I do agree, is every business person has to decided a criteria for doing business - and sometimes people want services that in an individual case is not beneficial to the business - say the nuance of delivering the service to the requirements of some individuals is too costly or somehow not good for the business. And so this has always been the case. Sometimes large buyers are favored, in that those desiring to purchase a number of goods isn't enough to meet the criteria of the business - who only will do certain deals if the quantity is substantial enough. Maybe the business owner doesn't service small jobs or those below a certain criteria. These are very common practices and it's not the government's business how someone desires to run their business - or it shouldn't be.

The problem is when discrimination is racially or religiously based, or - or against whatever minority segment of society. A business should not be able to discriminate on such a basis. HOWEVER, if someone desires a business to provide goods or services that in some way would violate the business owner's ethics, personal or religious conscience - that is when the government needs to stay out of it - because personal rights of conscience are every bit as important as a person's right to receive services. And in almost every case, these cases of conscience, those denied a service have many other options. Yes, they'll be someone inconvenienced, but by business people having this right, business people can live out their personal ethics as they see fit - which the government should stay out of. NO one has the right to always expect everything from every business - not in a truly free society.

[Nicki]

And out of the woodwork come the newly emboldened bigots righteous, vindicated Christians.

I think he's in the wrong because he's not looking at the big picture. Homosexual behaviour is wrong according to the Bible, but so are a lot of other things. In fact there's no one who's perfect and does no wrong. If someone only wants to do business with perfect people, they won't be doing a lot of business.

The cake situation is a little different. Bakers will probably be asked to make cakes celebrating something they think is wrong. It's a tricky one - maybe I won't be doing the bakery apprenticeship I've been thinking about as a possibility for the future (seriously).

[Philip]

The cake situation is a little different. Bakers will probably be asked to make cakes celebrating something they think is wrong. It's a tricky one - maybe I won't be doing the bakery apprenticeship I've been thinking about as a possibility for the future (seriously).

And thus you would be surrendering to the forces who want to control people's consciences and ability to live out their faith as they see fit. Christians need to be out in the world, just not of it.

Would you bake a cake for non-Christians of whatever beliefs? I have no great problem with that - I mean, people married and divorced multiple times vs. two homosexuals buying a cake. Really, they are both making a mockery of God's view of marriage, are they not. But THEY are the one's doing so. But getting you to decorate, "Congrats to Rhett and Brett Forever," then they are getting you to endorse it, and you should have the right not to. So, there are nuances to these things, and Christians have to decide how they will navigate them. But aren't to just withdraw and give up.

[Kurieuo]

There is a big difference between what is socially acceptable vs what should be state enforced.

Phil, in your distinction would you find acceptable the state arresting someone for refusing their service to another under some circumstances then? I think we all here agree with the obvious that prejudice against other persons is not simply socially unacceptable, but morally wrong. Christians have no lesser example found than in the parable of the good Samaritan.

Sometimes society needs to change over generations to get to make moral progress, and our Christian worldview provides some objective foundations necessary to say moral progress is actually being had by one society over another (rather than saying they're just different).

Yet, to say someone's services should be state enforcable, for ANY reason, to me rings of slavary and that we're all -- all people in that state -- are ultimately state property rather than truly free. This I strongly resist and disagree with.