Discriminating against gays is not Christianity. It's homophobia hiding behind religion, which is what all forms of bigotry use as an excuse.
Anyone have an update on the gay wedding cake case at the Supreme Court?
- Thread starter BrianNole09
- Start date
Discriminating against gays is not Christianity. It's homophobia hiding behind religion, which is what all forms of bigotry use as an excuse.
What does that have to do with it? You are the one that said religion trumps all. I said a sincere religious belief.
You don’t have a constitutional right to start a business on only the service terms you see fit.
Then this is a country that no longer values liberty. You don't stop becoming an American when you become a business owner.
What religion espouses those beliefs?
This is a bad and unnecessary case. It sits at the intersection of far too many rights - actual and purported. No matter what way the Court rules, it will have unintended consequences that will need to be sorted out for years.
Wrong. Those born gay should be afforded the same liberty as anyone else. We are pro-liberty. You are pro discrimination, bigotry, and archaic homophobia.
The baker did treat them with dignity and respect.
He told them he would sell them anything in his store and that they were welcome anytime but he did not create cakes for same-sex weddings just like he wouldn't for other events that he didn't agree with.
Then, the two gentlemen cursed him and flipped him off and called their allies to start threatening him and now they're trying to put him out of business.
If they had any dignity and respect for others, they would have merely gone to another shop instead of trying to destroy anyone that disagrees with their lifestyle.
I said a sincerely held religious belief. Hence part of the problem. Easy to claim; impossible to prove the negative.
A repost:
Gay Cake Flim-Flam
I Am Jack
Of Jack’s Cake Snacks
Need a cake? I got your back
I like to bake
I bake fine cakes
I bake cakes for your wedding breaks
Hello Jack
We’d like a snack
Can you bake us some Wedding crack?
I can do cakes
For Wedding breaks
I’d love to make a cake outtake
What do you need?
A 3-tiered Floom?
To top with your dear bride and groom?
We do not need
the bride today
Just need the cake, for we are gay!
A 3 tiered Floom
Would fill the room
Topped off with just a pair of grooms
My gosh,
I fear there’s a mistake
I cannot bake your wedding cake
For I am Christian
here today
I don’t believe in gay forays
Would you, could you
With no grooms?
We only need the 3-tiered Floom
I would not, could not without grooms
I can’t allow you to consume
As baking cakes
for outward gays
Offends my sensitivitays
Would you
if you don’t attend?
We’re not here trying to offend.
I would not, could not bake my friends
My church’s rules I will not bend
We only ask
you’ll make a cake
We don’t need you to fornicate
But when you kiss,
I promote sin
With cake I made that’s on your skin
Would you, could you, if we sue
We’d only like a cake from you
I would not, could not, if you sue
I do not like your gayness, Shoo!
Your evil ways,
I won’t support
I guess I’ll see you two in court
(To be Continued)
Copy/share, but just attribute back here if you do.
Gay Cake Flim-Flam
I Am Jack
Of Jack’s Cake Snacks
Need a cake? I got your back
I like to bake
I bake fine cakes
I bake cakes for your wedding breaks
Hello Jack
We’d like a snack
Can you bake us some Wedding crack?
I can do cakes
For Wedding breaks
I’d love to make a cake outtake
What do you need?
A 3-tiered Floom?
To top with your dear bride and groom?
We do not need
the bride today
Just need the cake, for we are gay!
A 3 tiered Floom
Would fill the room
Topped off with just a pair of grooms
My gosh,
I fear there’s a mistake
I cannot bake your wedding cake
For I am Christian
here today
I don’t believe in gay forays
Would you, could you
With no grooms?
We only need the 3-tiered Floom
I would not, could not without grooms
I can’t allow you to consume
As baking cakes
for outward gays
Offends my sensitivitays
Would you
if you don’t attend?
We’re not here trying to offend.
I would not, could not bake my friends
My church’s rules I will not bend
We only ask
you’ll make a cake
We don’t need you to fornicate
But when you kiss,
I promote sin
With cake I made that’s on your skin
Would you, could you, if we sue
We’d only like a cake from you
I would not, could not, if you sue
I do not like your gayness, Shoo!
Your evil ways,
I won’t support
I guess I’ll see you two in court
(To be Continued)
Copy/share, but just attribute back here if you do.
That makes no sense. You can't force someone to do something against his will and call that "liberty."
Lol, because stoning women to death for adultery and throwing homosexuals off the roof of a building is basically the same thing as refusing to bake a cake.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this case is that it was illegal for the two men to marry in Colorado at that time. They had to travel to Massachusetts to get married and then returned home to Colorado to have a reception with friends and family.
So basically this baker was fined for refusing to participate in an illegal activity.
'Merica!
So basically this baker was fined for refusing to participate in an illegal activity.
'Merica!
You are aware that imposition of religious "beliefs" as laws is the point here, right?
You are aware there are varying degrees of imposition, right?
Tell me which of these things is not like the others:
1) Buried up to your neck and pummeled with rocks until you die.
2) Thrown to your death from the roof of a building.
3) Gotta drive an extra two blocks to get a wedding cake.
Last edited:
You can't pull the gun away from someone whose will it is to shoot someone? LOL. Simple-minded argument.
We don't?
It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every legal claim, after all, is a claim to something—either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding.
John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: ‘‘Lives, Liberties, and Estates, Property Rights and the Constitution which I call by the general Name, Property.’’ And James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, echoed those thoughts when he wrote that ‘‘as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.’’
Much moral confusion would be avoided if we understood that all of our rights—all of the things to which we are ‘‘entitled’’—can be reduced to property. That would enable us to separate genuine rights—things to which we hold title—from specious ‘‘rights’’—things to which other people hold title, which we may want.
It was the genius of the old common law, grounded in reason, that it grasped that point. And the common-law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: that property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another, and that individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato....ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf
The party itself was not illegal, but the marriage was illegal and the party was a celebration of the start of that illegal marriage.
So basically the state of Colorado prohibited the two men from getting married, but punished the baker for refusing to be a part of their wedding.
You do realize that this country is founded on non-Christian 'values', but actually religious freedom and freedoms FROM religious imposition, right?
Did you forget all the 7th grade social studies on why people immigrated here, to escape the religious persecution in Europe?
Now, you want to impose laws that allow people to force their own religious beliefs on others, just "because".
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying. Ergo, the cake wasn't, either.
And, thus, it wasn't even for a "marriage" it was for a "party".
My guess is this baker wouldn't bake a child's birthday cake for same-sex parents, either. Because it's "wrong"....
You have that backwards, sport. Colorado passed a law that forces people to violate their religious principles. Not the other way around.
I read the other day about a guy who was removed from a bar because of his Trump hat. He sued. The judge said that the bar didn’t do anything wrong and that political beliefs were not protected like religion.
It made me think, what would happen if a cake maker in San Francisco refused to make a Make America Great Again cake? Are they protected?
It made me think, what would happen if a cake maker in San Francisco refused to make a Make America Great Again cake? Are they protected?
Source? And no, they were discriminated against based on how they were born, not their "lifestyle".
Plenty of people never marry. Getting married is indeed a "lifestyle."
Good point. Is it the fault of Trump supporters that they were born with a mental impairment? ;-)
Buy they aren't discriminating against them getting married, they're discriminating against a gay marriage. It's not hard to see why this is being done, even if you or @BrianNole09 don't want to admit it.
It's not hard to see why what is being done?
Violating the baker's religious freedom?
That you hate gays, think they are sinners, and don't want them to have the same rights. That's your only argument. Just be honest with yourself.
I don't hate gays and I'm not a baker.
I do hate government forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. That's not America.
If you want to argue that refusing to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple is persecution then go right ahead with your argument. But comparing it to Sharia Law is a remarkably stupid way to make your argument.
BS. You want Sharia Law? You seem to argue for it. Oh that's right, you want Christian Sharia Law. You want discrimination against someone born a certain way to be acceptable. That's not America.
Again with the Sharia Law argument. Do you guys not realize how stupid you look when you play that card?
Nonsense.
I don't think anyone in this thread hates gays. Just admit you hate liberty and Christianity. You're the reason why the Democrats are losing the Christian vote.
Or, you know, you could actually try to use logic and prove the fallacy of the argument like an adult. It might be the first time, but there's a first time for everything. ;-)
The baker told what happened in multiple interviews. He's not against them personally, he's against same-sex marriage. It's amazing that you can't understand this. It's not that complicated.
Sorry, you strongly dislike their very identity. I don't give AF about winning elections if it means bowing down to religious fools/bigots.
Baking a cake does not violate the baker’s religious principles. Simply baking a cake is not an affirmation of support. I’m sure he has baked plenty of cakes for children born out of wedlock with nary a fuss.
Now, if the couple was asking the baker to design a cake that said “I support gay marriage”...that’s a different story.
Similar threads
