1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Texas_tea, Dec 8, 2013.

  1. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS


    Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs


    A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.

    What do you think? Is this right? Does private business trump federal discrimination laws? What about the Constitution?
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Make a bad cake. That should take care of that. Or realize all money is green. Or have ACLU work this thru the courts as government has no business putting their nose in this. Its not a righrs matter at all religious or civil. If it gies this way then you must make all businesses that say you cannot carry a weapon concealed or open in their place of business cut that out.
     
    cashmcall likes this.
  3. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    What if Muslim businesses refuse to serve Christians ... Jews? Is this OK?

    Concealed carry is another matter. If they refuse concealed carry customers they take responsibility for their safety and if something happens they can be held responsible accordingly!
     
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    yes
    please tell me thats a joke. why that would mean that sandy hook school could be sued for failing to protect those who died.
     
  5. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    This is why the Democrats are History after Jan 20 2015 Americans are sick n tired liberal ideology. If those Colorado recalls doesn't give them the message then they will never get it.
     
  6. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    So then you agree this is just another example of the federal government under the Obama Regime forcing Christians to act against their will ....

    In the state of Texas if you label your business as a 30.06 (gun free) then you are taking the responsibility for your patrons safety. There are exceptions like the 51% rule and I am sure this differs between states!
     
  7. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    this stuff was happening long before Obama. DC has been exersizing authority it does not have since way before you or I were musings in the minds of our ancestors many generations ago.
     
  8. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Let me think.....can I discriminate against Muslims by not wanting to eat in their restaurant? Should the government force me to buy something I don't want?

    Oh right.....they just did.
     
  9. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    Will they force Muslim restaurants to serve pork?
     
  10. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Jewish delis don't, and I love their food.
     
  11. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    I love it too ....

    So, what this boils down to is special treatment for gays?

    The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

    # 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
     
  12. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Well if the baker can be forced to do this, I'm wondering if restaurants will have to take down those signs that say; "we have the right to refuse service to anyone".
    "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
     
  13. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I think we are all missing the right way to look at this - not because I will now tell you all how smart I am and what the right way is, but because I just dont think we are thinking about this right.

    I know its wrong to force the baker to serve everyone even if he thinks by doing so he is participating in moral behavior he disapproves of. I also know that back in the 50's if all the hotels in an area decided not rent rooms to blacks it would be possible for a black family to show up in town and have no place to stay. Or with restaurants not food to eat.

    I a single business chooses to lose business it makes no difference. If all the businesses do this people can die. If many do this people are seriously inconvenienced. Are the courts supposed to make decisions based on how many people are engaging in refusing service? I dont think they should make decisions that way.

    From the same angle with different language: all rights are individual rights not collective rights. Each individual business has a right to decide with whom it will do business. If they all collectively discriminate it will harm people greatly - but we have to consider the rights individually not collectively. As long as most businesses serve people only inconvenience results and the individual rights of business owners is upheld. that is the state of affairs right now.

    So what if all businesses refuse to serve gays or blacks? Might the case be made that they are colluding with each other? The refusal of service would not be a matter we could hold them to the fire for but the collusion would be. They should be presecuted for colluding to harm people. Or should they? the source of the collusion is likely to be the bible in the case of gays. Would actively trying to get everyone to agree with a certain interpretation of the bible be collusion? With blacks the source of the collusion could be traced to our founding fathers who simply believed that blacks and whites were so different that they could never live together. A position which is being challenged but is by no means disproved yet. is it really collusion if people are just holding to a collective view based on their religion?

    I dont have the answers but I think it is a bit silly for the baker to think that his serving a cake to a gay couple is a moral conundrum - I mean, its a cake dude. Thats just commerce not an endorsement of homosexuality. Is it the same when hotels rent room to unmarried teens? I kind of think that what goes on in the room moral or otherwise is not the responsibility of the hotel owner. And since we are talking about what is silly - yo gay dude, go to another baker. we all know that your real reason for bringing this to court is that you want to force everyone not only to serve you cake but to give you acceptance for being gay. well its not the job of the state to make people accept your lifestyle. you dont really want justice you want to unjustly make people love what you love. In fact you might be just like the baker who is likely doing the same thing and using morality as an excuse to punish people for not agreeing.

    We live in a plurality, a culture were there are goig to be lots of different ideas and way of doing things. we really need to let other people do their own thing.
     
  14. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    You can't legislate morality. You also can't equate race to a sexual preference. This is a very slippery slope.

    What if a black minister refuses to marry a black gay couple? Not on the basis of their race but because it's against his religion, and the gay couple takes him to court?

    What's the difference?
     
  15. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    Theses cases will get attention, or not based along "social justice" lines. In other words if a black preacher refuses to marry a white heterosexual couple based on race, chances are it would have never made it to the level this case has.

    If the couple is gay, interracial, or it's a black couple being refused by a white preacher based on race or religious belief, one can expect it to receive the kind of attention this case has seen.

    This is a very slippery slope as you say and it is not based on "justice" of any kind. Justice would imply that it is for all when it is clearly not.

    This is special treatment for a few, in violation of the US Constitution, it's the Marxist way, which will result in the loss of Freedoms and Liberties for all.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice