Colo. court lets ruling stand on baker who denied gay couple service
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202184]Man, thats just not nice. Christian or not, dont shit on people beliefs.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
My motto is "shit on beliefs, not on people".
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50202286]It's really not, even the church explicitly states that you should live life through the virtues provided by the word, not it's explicit writing.
hell, christianity is built on the concept that you SHOULD do that, christ died for our sins in order to save us from judgement, and so long as you believe in the lord you shall be given rest in heaven and what have you.[/QUOTE]
The church is run by men. Men who, because it is convenient to do so, ignore certain aspects of the bible that we now consider too barbaric. This doesn't change the fact that the bible includes in parts of holy scripture, extremely barbaric verses. There wouldn't be a need for "figurative interpretation" (which is Christian apologist for "pick and choose") if those parts didn't exist in the first place. However, they do, and Christians today realize subconsciously that their better judgement and liberal ideas make far more sense than the bible does, so to reconcile the two they've come up with a half-assed theology which essentially states that the old testament doesn't matter anymore except for the mythological parts. Even though god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in a big fire due to their crimes of living such hedonistic lifestyles, including homosexuality, that very same god now wants us to tolerate the gays 2000+ years later.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50202234]The cake wasn't denied on sexual preference, he didn't not make them a cake because they where gay. He refused to make them a cake for a same sex wedding. There is a difference.[/QUOTE]
the difference is arbitrary, really. it's the "i don't mind the gays but they shouldn't be able to get married" mindset that people use to pretend they're not homophobic (they still are)
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50202304]Yeah, my opinion won't be changed. Regardless I'm going to ask this, how is a baker refusing to make you a cake going to marginalize you? No, I'm not fishing for a reaction.
"right to live as they want without fearing they'll be marginalized because they're simply different from another."
So a baker isn't allowed to refuse business because he is different.[/QUOTE]
No, because our nation and many nations of the world have deemed this a violation of your civil rights and have put down rules to back that up. Again dude, youre plain wrong and have no substantial argument
[QUOTE=KingOfScience;50202293]you don't really have the right to decide how other people practice their religion
plus, the bible says that you can't eat shellfish or wear gold, or wear clothes made of a blend of cotton and linen. there's plenty of archaic outdated shit that was probably lost in translation over two millennia.[/QUOTE]
Sure I can't. But when it comes to theology, generally only one person can be right (though, in my view, they're [B]all[/B] wrong). I'm just pointing out that the way they've chosen to practice their religion is just feel good bullshit which allows them to conveniently ignore the more barbaric parts of their religion so they can sleep soundly at night knowing that there's a heaven to go to
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202327]The church is run by men. Men who, because it is convenient to do so, ignore certain aspects of the bible that we now consider too barbaric. This doesn't change the fact that the bible includes in parts of holy scripture, extremely barbaric verses. There wouldn't be a need for "figurative interpretation" (which is Christian apologist for "pick and choose") if those parts didn't exist in the first place. However, they do, and Christians today realize subconsciously that their better judgement and liberal ideas make far more sense than the bible does, so to reconcile the two they've come up with a half-assed theology which essentially states that the old testament doesn't matter anymore except for the mythological parts. Even though god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in a big fire due to their crimes of living such hedonistic lifestyles, including homosexuality, that very same god now wants us to tolerate the gays 2000+ years later.[/QUOTE]
so what youre saying is that the bible is a dated book that even the church recognizes as such and thus teaches a more modern faith based on the virtues and core messages of the word rather than whst is strictly wrutten?
[editline]25th April 2016[/editline]
I think you misunderstand the faith (not calling you out here), you live by the commandments not the bible
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202341]Sure I can't. But when it comes to theology, generally only one person can be right (though, in my view, they're [B]all[/B] wrong). I'm just pointing out that the way they've chosen to practice their religion is just feel good bullshit which allows them to conveniently ignore the more barbaric parts of their religion so they can sleep soundly at night knowing that there's a heaven to go to[/QUOTE]
why is it bad if a christian decides to celebrate the positive teachings of the bible and move past the outdated parts? if laws can change, why can't religious beliefs?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50202325]What stops someone from simply saying "I'm not providing you this product" without even going into their religious beliefs or convictions? Couldn't a bakery simply refuse to serve a customer regardless of sexual orientation?[/QUOTE]
Of course, theres nothing stopping you (aside from bad reviews), you cant ever -stop- prejudice but at least its a start
To get more philosophical, there was a guy named Luwig Feuerbach. He said that 1.) god doesn't exist and 2.) that god was created in man's image not vice-versa. You ever notice how god is always the same race as the people who worship him? That, even though he was born in what is now Israel, we depict him as white? It's because god is a convenient tool for people to justify their [B]own[/B] existence and actions. When being gay is seen as a morally reprehensible thing, god also thinks being gay is morally reprehensible. Today, when being gay is okay due to our liberal ideas about freedom, magically [I]God wants you to interpret the bible literally[/I]. It could be that our prevailing ideas about religion correlate to our prevailing ideas about the individual in society, and that as we become more and more industrialized and self-actualized and believe in our own worth and freedom more and more, we care less and less for god until we stop caring altogether. But until we get to that point, as many European countries like the Czech republic have done, we're going to continue to legislate god away until he's some non-corporeal space dust and Jesus was just a big metaphor for forgiveness rather than a literal tale about a man who paid some sort of metaphysical deficit on sin for the entirety of the human race (he is god, why does he have to pay for sin, and to whom does he pay it to?)
"The Essence of Christianity" by Feuerbach is a good read for anyone interested in philosophy
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50202359]so what youre saying is that the bible is a dated book that even the church recognizes as such and thus teaches a more modern faith based on the virtues and core messages of the word rather than whst is strictly wrutten?[/QUOTE]
What he's saying is that the church is a group of people who just pick and chose what they like and don't like to tailor their religion to what they like and don't like, and manipulate their followers into thinking it's god's word, and not theirs. For example, the bible says being rich is bad, but Christians like being rich, so let's just forget about that part of the bible. You can't make laws based on a religion because religion is just some guy's opinions. The church doesn't actually follow the word of god, they made up a bunch of rules and they follow them.
Why is the Catholic church's made up rules more valuable than anyone else's? If I made a book that says marriage between two black people is a sin, I couldn't say no to making a wedding cake for two black people, so why is my religion less valuable than theirs? They're both people's opinions written down on paper, nothing more, nothing less, and there's no reason for the laws of rational and sane people to bow to one person's or a group of people's opinions as if they're fact. We make our laws based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. Gay marriage is no different from straight marriage, this is a biological fact, homosexuality occurs in all other species, it's not some social construct, it's just a thing that happens, and you can't just recuse yourself from basic biological fact because of (the parts you like of) a millenia old book.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202383]To get more philosophical, there was a guy named Luwig Feuerbach. He said that 1.) god doesn't exist and 2.) that god was created in man's image not vice-versa. You ever notice how god is always the same race as the people who worship him? That, even though he was born in what is now Israel, we depict him as white? It's because god is a convenient tool for people to justify their [B]own[/B] existence and actions. When being gay is seen as a morally reprehensible thing, god also thinks being gay is morally reprehensible. Today, when being gay is okay due to our liberal ideas about freedom, magically [I]God wants you to interpret the bible literally[/I]. It could be that our prevailing ideas about religion correlate to our prevailing ideas about the individual in society, and that as we become more and more industrialized and self-actualized and believe in our own worth and freedom more and more, we care less and less for god until we stop caring altogether. But until we get to that point, as many European countries like the Czech republic have done, we're going to continue to legislate god away until he's some non-corporeal space dust and Jesus was just a big metaphor for forgiveness rather than a literal tale about a man who paid some sort of metaphysical deficit on sin for the entirety of the human race (he is god, why does he have to pay for sin, and to whom does he pay it to?)
"The Essence of Christianity" by Feuerbach is a good read for anyone interested in philosophy[/QUOTE]
Christ youre so damn self righteous, i dont even believe in god either. No one here has argued gods existance, were discussing how religion is about forming a community around messages and values. Yes its feel good, thats the -point-, theres nothing wrong with that besides 'i hate religion!'
old literal interpretations of faith are -terrible-, i agree with you there, but thats because people were and still are ignorant. The difference is that now (at least in the church) the faith is diverging from literal 'burn the heathens!' teachings and boiling the message to its core. Ive got no problems with religious reform, and it seems like you dont either. You just have to look at it from a lower angle, things -are- changing for the better, but its a slow progress.
We're so off the rails this train is flying into outer space.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;50202396]What he's saying is that the church is a group of people who just pick and chose what they like and don't like to tailor their religion to what they like and don't like, and manipulate their followers into thinking it's god's word, and not theirs. For example, the bible says being rich is bad, but Christians like being rich, so let's just forget about that part of the bible. You can't make laws based on a religion because religion is just some guy's opinions. The church doesn't actually follow the word of god, they made up a bunch of rules and they follow them.
Why is the Catholic church's made up rules more valuable than anyone else's? If I made a book that says marriage between two black people is a sin, I couldn't say no to making a wedding cake for two black people, so why is my religion less valuable than theirs? They're both people's opinions written down on paper, nothing more, nothing less, and there's no reason for the laws of rational and sane people to bow to one person's or a group of people's opinions as if they're fact. We make our laws based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. Gay marriage is no different from straight marriage, this is a biological fact, homosexuality occurs in all other species, it's not some social construct, it's just a thing that happens, and you can't just recuse yourself from basic biological fact because of (the parts you like of) a millenia old book.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is what I'm saying, but I would also like to take it in the following direction: that those who would try to say "these are not the real christians" are simply lying to themselves about the reality of their religion. If we accept that everyone has their own interpretation of the bible local to themselves, then we accept that the bible-thumping gaybashing christianity is not more correct than the modern day liberal progressive christian apologists who would reclaim christianity from its 1700 year history of barbaric wars and massacres. I think that the apologists who don't read the old testament are just as hypocritical as the fundamentalists who don't follow the new testament. One of these people is wrong. I predict it's: both of them.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202156]I don't think they're comparable in this case. Racism is just a product of ignorance. Christianity is very explicit in its belief that homosexuality is a sin.[/QUOTE]
Christianity is also very explicit in it's belief that you should love thy neighbor, but apparently it's not ignorance when you pick and choose what parts of your religion you want to believe in, especially when you're using said religion to justify discrimination against a group of people.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50202325]What stops someone from simply saying "I'm not providing you this product" without even going into their religious beliefs or convictions? Couldn't a bakery simply refuse to serve a customer regardless of sexual orientation?[/QUOTE]
I want some more opinions on this, what happend to the right to refuse service?
The gay couple got mad that they couldn't get their cake so now they took the baker to court to force him to make the cake, whats stopping him from making a shitty cake full of pubes? The baker refused to make the cake so he's out a sale and a whole customer base which he refuses to sell to.
This could have been avoided if the gay couple just walked along and found a baker willing to serve them. The baker could have just said "I refuse to serve you" and not stated any reasons, thats that, life goes on.
Is it a right to have a wedding cake made for you, or a privilege?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50202424]Christ youre so damn self righteous, i dont even believe in god either. No one here has argued gods existance, were discussing how religion is about forming a community around messages and values. Yes its feel good, thats the -point-, theres nothing wrong with that besides 'i hate religion!'
old literal interpretations of faith are -terrible-, i agree with you there, but thats because people were and still are ignorant. The difference is that now (at least in the church) the faith is diverging from literal 'burn the heathens!' teachings and boiling the message to its core. Ive got no problems with religious reform, and it seems like you dont either. You just have to look at it from a lower angle, things -are- changing for the better, but its a slow progress.[/QUOTE]
I'm not seeing where the conflict is. The original claim was that the baker is wrong because he was not meant to interpret the bible literally. I personally believe that a literal interpretation of the bible ought to be considered just as valid as a figurative interpretation (in my opinion, both are equally invalid, but that's besides the point). I'm saying that when he argues that his religion dictates he not make a cake for a same-sex marriage wedding, you can't say that he's following his religion wrong, and that he's intrepreting the bible wrong. It's his religion, and it's his bible. Either we accept that all intrepretations of the bible are valid in the legal domain of protecting religious speech under the first amendment, or we accept that religion is not a valid domain for protected speech and that we ought to be able to force people to go against their beliefs, like with civil rights for blacks. We cannot, however, attempt to invalidate someone else's beliefs by saying that a literal interpretation of the bible is "wrong".
However, we've yet to discuss whether or not baking a cake for a wedding constitutes speech or art, which could be protected by the first amendment. You couldn't require a christian to tattoo "There is no god hail satan" in a tattoo parlor, could you? Similarly, the man seems to be arguing that he shouldn't be required to perform a speech act which amounts to his endorsement of a wedding which he considers to be immoral and wrong by his religion, also known as sacrilege.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202123]Nobody should be forced to do something they don't wish to do/that is against their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
So, say, a police officer should be allowed to refuse helping someone in case it goes against his/her religious beliefs?
(No, I'm not comparing a baker to a police officer, I'm taking your word literally)
My religion also tells me I'll go to hell if I pay my taxes, pls dont be mean :(
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202518]I want some more opinions on this, what happend to the right to refuse service?[/QUOTE]
The "right to refuse service" (that ambiguous term meaning for any reason at any time) simply cannot exist in real life, an ambulance company can't refuse service to someone because they choked on shellfish and the bible says don't eat shellfish. A fire company can't let a person's house burn because a gay couple lives there. You can't give people the right to refuse service whenever they want, society would fall apart, so you have to draw the line somewhere, and where to draw that line is a matter of opinion.
The law doesn't do well with matters of opinion and ambiguity, you have to spell out specifics in writing. The most fair and easy method is to require business owners to have an example of an objective, demonstrable problem that would result because of serving someone. A significant loss of revenue for example.
"A 2000 year old book that has no relevance in modern day and is just the opinions of a group of unelected people and has been changed by many groups of unelected people told me those people are bad" is not a good enough reason under any circumstances.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202518]I want some more opinions on this, what happend to the right to refuse service?
The gay couple got mad that they couldn't get their cake so now they took the baker to court to force him to make the cake, whats stopping him from making a shitty cake full of pubes? The baker refused to make the cake so he's out a sale and a whole customer base which he refuses to sell to.
This could have been avoided if the gay couple just walked along and found a baker willing to serve them.[/QUOTE]
the "right to refuse service" takes back seat to discrimination laws. you're not allowed to refuse service to people based on religion, gender, race, nationality, or disability. many, but not all, states include sexual preference in this group.
basically, it means you can kick someone out if they're being a disruptive ass, but not if they're gay, or black, etc.
[url]https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance[/url]
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202518]I want some more opinions on this, what happend to the right to refuse service?[/QUOTE]
It's still there. It's just that if you refuse service to gay people and just don't say why, you're about as safe as if an employer refused to hire women and just didn't say why, or if a landlord refused to rent to black people and just didn't say why.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202518]The gay couple got mad that they couldn't get their cake so now they took the baker to court to force him to make the cake, whats stopping him from making a shitty cake full of pubes? The baker refused to make the cake so he's out a sale and a whole customer base which he refuses to sell to.[/QUOTE]
Well, health codes, for starters.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202518]This could have been avoided if the gay couple just walked along and found a baker willing to serve them.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how this isn't clear to you. Sexual orientation is a protected class, and you can't discriminate services based on a protected class. It's literally that simple. Why don't [minorities, Muslims, Canadians, old people, women, pregnant women, immigrants, divorced people, disabled people, veterans] just find a baker willing to serve them?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202156]
I don't think they're comparable in this case. Racism is just a product of ignorance. Christianity is very explicit in its belief that homosexuality is a sin.[/QUOTE]
Which is just a product of ignorance.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50202325]What stops someone from simply saying "I'm not providing you this product" without even going into their religious beliefs or convictions? Couldn't a bakery simply refuse to serve a customer regardless of sexual orientation?[/QUOTE]
As far as I can tell that's pretty much what happened- they accepted the customer, but refused service because of the product requested (a pro-gay-marriage cake). But then they got taken to court, because if you refuse service to a protected class you are required to have an airtight justification or you'll probably lose. The right to refuse service goes out the window when protected classes are involved.
I understand the need for protection against discrimination, but in this case a business owner didn't want to make a product endorsing something they disagree with and I don't see how that's discriminating against a customer's identity. If they didn't want to make a cake endorsing the Black Panthers but would otherwise make any other cake for a black customer, this ruling is implying that that would be racial discrimination. It doesn't seem logical.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;50202292]If you 100% agree with the phrase "[B]If a man lies with another man he should be stoned[/B]" then I have zero problem shitting on your beliefs because your beliefs are horrible.[/QUOTE]
It could be interpreted as a call to legalize marijuana
[QUOTE=catbarf;50204345]As far as I can tell that's pretty much what happened- they accepted the customer, but refused service because of the product requested (a pro-gay-marriage cake). But then they got taken to court, because if you refuse service to a protected class you are required to have an airtight justification or you'll probably lose. The right to refuse service goes out the window when protected classes are involved.
I understand the need for protection against discrimination, but in this case a business owner didn't want to make a product endorsing something they disagree with and I don't see how that's discriminating against a customer's identity. If they didn't want to make a cake endorsing the Black Panthers but would otherwise make any other cake for a black customer, this ruling is implying that that would be racial discrimination. It doesn't seem logical.[/QUOTE]
And if this is really the case, is it actually moral to say that it's okay to force a baker to go against their beliefs to support someone else's beliefs? That is to say, regardless of your opinions on gay marriage and religion, is it fair to say that despite your beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, you must bake a cake that carries a message that goes against your beliefs?
I would personally say it is not. I understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit, but I think it is highly more logical to either A) simply not order a cake with pro-gay-marriage content, or B) find a different bakery.
I would argue that in these last few years, support for gay marriage has been gaining steadfast traction and a lawsuit in these bounds is frivolous when other reasonable solutions or accommodations exist. Simply not giving business to someone who is not supportive of you or your beliefs is enough of a statement.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202231]I don't disagree, but while the former is the government asking an individual to change their secular, humanistic outlook on life to accommodate everyone else, the latter is asking an individual to compromise on something which they believe affects whether or not they'll go to heaven or hell. I mean, a racist can learn not to be a racist, but the only way for a bible-thumping homophobe to learn not to be a homophone is for them to lose a part of their religion, and that's what the government is asking they do by playing part in something which they consider to be against their religion.
Once again, I don't agree, I just understand where he's coming from[/QUOTE]
The bible doesn't say anything about making cakes for people. If anything, it encourages that you treat people nicely regardless of who they are and what they do. What these bakers did was despite their religion.
[QUOTE=3picFail;50204925]The bible doesn't say anything about making cakes for people. If anything, it encourages that you treat people nicely regardless of who they are and what they do. What these bakers did was despite their religion.[/QUOTE]
It is not hard to find hypocrisy in religion, though. People pick and choose which tenets they want to enforce all the time. That is to say, you're not wrong at all, but it's more common than you'd think.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50202265]I don't think that's a fact. As an atheist, I think that the bible is meant to be more concretely interpretted, especially when it explicity says
[B]'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13
[/B]
I don't think that's up to interpretation really. I think that modern day Christians like to choose which parts of the bible to follow because it suits their needs, but I think the ones that choose not to read the part about "kill the gays" are just as bad Christians as the ones that choose not to read "love thy neighbor".
I think Christianity is a backwards, outdated religion whose holy book justifies horrible crimes against non-believers and teaches very backwards things about women and gays, etc.
I think this is the same for Islam, and for Judaism as well. The only difference is that most Christians are simply [B]bad Christians.[/B] (thank god!)[/QUOTE]
Except that law is old jewish law meant to govern the people of Israel, which nobody outside israel is a part of. That law doesn't apply and hasn't for a couple thousand years at this point.
New testament, laid out by Christ, is completely different. You find me a quote of Christ saying gays are wrong and we'll talk.
Until then, please shut your mouth about how fundamentally backwards Christianity is when you aren't even understanding the topic properly.
[quote=Matthew 7]“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."[/quote]
[QUOTE=catbarf;50204345]As far as I can tell that's pretty much what happened- they accepted the customer, but refused service because of the product requested (a pro-gay-marriage cake). But then they got taken to court, because if you refuse service to a protected class you are required to have an airtight justification or you'll probably lose. The right to refuse service goes out the window when protected classes are involved.
I understand the need for protection against discrimination, but in this case a business owner didn't want to make a product endorsing something they disagree with and I don't see how that's discriminating against a customer's identity. If they didn't want to make a cake endorsing the Black Panthers but would otherwise make any other cake for a black customer, this ruling is implying that that would be racial discrimination. It doesn't seem logical.[/QUOTE]
Except that's [b][i]not[/i][/b] what happened, [URL="https://d3d3lmnvdxj0cy5zdgf0zs5jby51cw00.g00.www.washingtonpost.com/g00/TU9SRVBIRVVTMyRodHRwczovL3d3dy5jb3VydHMuc3RhdGUuY28udXMvQ291cnRzL0NvdXJ0X29mX0FwcGVhbHMvT3Bpbmlvbi8yMDE1LzE0Q0ExMzUxLVBELnBkZg%3D%3D/$/$/$/$/$?tid=a_inl"]according to the court's statement[/URL]:
[QUOTE]The charging document frequently referred to Phillips by name and identified him as the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and the person who told Craig and Mullins that his standard business practice was to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Masterpiece contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that its refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation. Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was “because of” its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Masterpiece asserts that it did not decline to make Craig’s and Mullins’ wedding cake “because of” their sexual orientation. It argues that it does not object to or refuse to serve patrons because of their sexual orientation, and that it assured Craig and Mullins that it would design and create any other bakery product for them, just not a wedding cake. Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct — entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey. Therefore, because its refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not “because of” their sexual orientation, Masterpiece contends that it did not violate CADA. We disagree. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Masterpiece contends that the Commission’s cease and desist order compels speech in violation of the First Amendment by requiring it to create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Masterpiece argues that wedding cakes inherently convey a celebratory message about marriage and, therefore, the Commission’s order unconstitutionally compels it to convey a celebratory message about same-sex marriage in conflict with its religious beliefs. We disagree. We conclude that the Commission’s order merely requires that Masterpiece not discriminate against potential customers in violation of CADA and that such conduct, even if compelled by the government, is not sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protections. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and, in such cases, First Amendment speech protections may be implicated. However, we need not reach this issue. [B]We note, again, that Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullins’ request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions.[/B] [/QUOTE]
It's a matter of public record. Don't try to make up bullshit about it.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50205295]Except that law is old jewish law meant to govern the people of Israel, which nobody outside israel is a part of. That law doesn't apply and hasn't for a couple thousand years at this point.[/QUOTE]
'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' - Matthew 5:17
You know there are a lot of Christians who acknowledge that parts of the OT are still in use, and cherry-pick to justify using the OT to oppose gay marriage, right? There are far too many differing interpretations of the Bible for you to make authoritative statements on what is or isn't actually Christianity.
[editline]26th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50205426]Except that's [B][I]not[/I][/B] what happened[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point is, you quoted sections that are explicitly stating exactly what I said.
[quote]Masterpiece asserts that it did not decline to make Craig’s and Mullins’ wedding cake “because of” their sexual orientation. It argues that it does not object to or refuse to serve patrons because of their sexual orientation, and that it assured Craig and Mullins that it would design and create any other bakery product for them, just not a wedding cake. Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct — entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey.[/quote]
The court disagreed on the grounds that same-sex marriage is politically close to same-sex weddings and concluded that refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake is legally equivalent to refusing service to gays, and I think that's a ridiculous stretch with absurd implications as a precedent.
What did I make up, exactly?
[QUOTE=catbarf;50205432]'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' - Matthew 5:17
You know there are a lot of Christians who acknowledge that parts of the OT are still in use, and cherry-pick to justify using the OT to oppose gay marriage, right? There are far too many differing interpretations of the Bible for you to make authoritative statements on what is or isn't actually Christianity.[/QUOTE]
New testament didn't destroy anything from the old law, Old law still exists, it just literally [I]does not apply to us[/I] because we are not the children of Israel, the jews are. Bible clearly says this.
A lot of christians don't follow that because [I]they don't know[/I] because [I]they don't care[/I] because [I]they aren't as christian as they claim.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.