SCOTUS Rulings

[n david]

The only thing I like about June is helping with VBS at church and reviewing SCOTUS rulings.

Mixed news today: "BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple for religious reasons."

While the vote was not close (7-2), the ruling was pretty narrow. SCOTUS ruled, ironically, that the CO civil rights commission violated the rights of the baker. However, the SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of the Baker's free speech or religious rights.

The ruling basically was due to the SCOTUS belief that the CO civil rights commission "showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."

"For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."

Here's where the next Christian baker may fail to win a SCOTUS case, if another is brought. The last part is important.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

So this was a very narrow ruling. The SCOTUS did not side with the baker in that his religious beliefs allow him to refuse to serve gays. It appears the only reason SCOTUS sided with the baker is because the CO court and civil rights commission was overtly hostile to the baker's religious beliefs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

[Pressing-On]

I just added this to Esaias thread, but glad you posted this. I have been following this story and am glad for the outcome.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Glad that the baker won, but the SCOTUS had to be sure to walk a tight rope. Can you imagine the can of worms that could be opened if SCOTUS did not include language that protects the rights of all citizens to participate in the free market? While we all enjoy religious freedoms, even those freedoms are tempered with the rule of law in order to keep our society from denigrating into all sorts of other forms of immorality. Think about the polygamous Mormons...

[n david]

Gays shouldn't be mad at this ruling. If anything, they should be happy for Justice Kennedy's opinion and the statement included: "while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

This was a ruling based solely on how the baker was treated by the CO civil rights commission, not on whether or not the baker had a religious right to refuse service to gays.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Think about the polygamous Mormons, the animal sacrificing pagans, the religious belief systems that would advocate violence (Islam)... there MUST be restraints on religious freedom in order to preserve order and for the common good of all citizens.

[Pressing-On]

Gays shouldn't be mad at this ruling. If anything, they should be happy for Justice Kennedy's opinion and the statement included: "while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

This was a ruling based solely on how the baker was treated by the CO civil rights commission, not on whether or not the baker had a religious right to refuse service to gays.

I am happy as I wondered how in the world the CO Civil Rights Commission could treat the Baker the way that they did. Big win!

It is a fine line that will have more litigation ahead.

[n david]

I am happy as I wondered how in the world the CO Civil Rights Commission could treat the Baker the way that they did. Big win!

It is a fine line that will have more litigation ahead.
I hadn't followed this much, but when I read about the comments from the commission, it really blew me away. Had they not been so biased and hateful against the religious beliefs of the baker, I doubt SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the baker.

[Pressing-On]

I hadn't followed this much, but when I read about the comments from the commission, it really blew me away. Had they not been so biased and hateful against the religious beliefs of the baker, I doubt SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the baker.

They were just hateful. Anyway, it is going to be a fine line between the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment. I see a lot of litigation still to come.

You can follow Alliance for Justice if you are on Twitter. They are reviewing the ruling and will post their view with a link on Twitter, more than likely.




AFJ: Cakeshop Ruling Makes It “More Important than Ever” to Fight Discrimination

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 2018 – Following today’s 7 to 2 Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the Court ruled narrowly for the bakery that refused to serve a same-sex couple, AFJ President Nan Aron released the following statement:

“Although this ruling is disappointing, it is important to remember that it is based on circumstances specific to this one case and does nothing to change critical legal rights and protections against discrimination. In fact, we were pleased to see that the rights of LGBTQ people to fair and equal treatment are emphasized in several portions of the ruling. This ruling does not open the door to rampant discrimination as some had feared. What it will most likely do, however, is open the door to extensive litigation aimed at determining how anti-discrimination protections will function in the face of challenges on religious grounds. That’s why it is more important than ever that our laws catch up with our values. We must defend and extend anti-discrimination protections so all of us can take our rightful place as full participants in our society.”



https://www.afj.org/

[Jito463]

Can you imagine the can of worms that could be opened if SCOTUS did not include language that protects the rights of all citizens to participate in the free market?

The issue wasn't with them baking the cake, it was with participating in the ceremony (via decorating the cake for the "wedding"). Why should the baker be forced to give up their rights and religious freedoms, just because they have a business?

Ultimately, this wasn't an attack on this baker, it was an attack on Christianity. Don't believe me? Go check out the Steven Crowder video (normally can't stand the guy, but he does make some good points) where he pretends to be gay and goes around to Muslim bakeries asking them to bake him a gay for his "marriage". Not one of them would do it, and constantly referred him to other places.

Why is it we've never heard of a Muslim bakery getting sued for not baking a cake? A real head scratcher, that is. :ohplease

[Wilsonwas]

Think about the polygamous Mormons, the animal sacrificing pagans, the religious belief systems that would advocate violence (Islam)...

Was this sarcasm? If not please read on....
Specifically to this

....there MUST be restraints on religious freedom in order to preserve order and for the common good of all citizens.

There must remain as little restraint on religion as possible. If you are counting on the red, white.and blue to maintain the liberties we have to meet, to express Christ's love and value, to teach our children the way that is narrow, then you place a very precious trust in the hands of some verifiable nutcases. Rome already seems to be rearing an ugly horn from the midst of the EU. This horn will allow any religion that aligns with it, to flourish. All real God fearing thought will be as faint and welcome as actual free speech is on our college campuses already. A few snowflakes amount to some fun and a day off, many for a long time can cause inconvenience, a storm if them with thunder and wind can bring catastrophe. I feel we are at the beginnings of the storm, this pope supports the snowflakes, this cannot bode well for the beleivers in the message of the Apostles- other than to solidify in our minds the fact that prophecy is true.

I dont care if its Wika that refuse to bake cakes, they deserve the right. Not because of any of any agreement with them, but because they are (wrong or not) a religion. A beleif system that beleives in a higher power. It was protected under the original negative rights assigned to gooberment as fences where it should not infringe.
I sincerly beleive that unless a great many are worn out by the continual whinning from our fringe of leftest victimization of literally everyone except good hard working, and God fearing folk. Then it is likely infringement will begin with those they see as marginal, and a threat. If they go after Wika they think they are a threat. As with many other programs done according to the book of Saul Alinski (spelling might be wrong)...this will appear sound and moderate to those not Wika....Until that is they start on the Baptists.....or more likely on the WPF or UPC, being smaller, seen as fringe organizations. Therefore I disagree with the MUST be restraints

[Esaias]

There is no solution, no "middle ground" that will work to satisfy everyone.

The only thing that matters in the end is that God's Truth is promoted. The farmer doesn't worry about being "fair" to the chaff. "Oh, but what if the chaff gangs up on his wheat and turns the tables?" Well, must have been because the farmer wasn't paying attention to the state of his crops...

[Amanah]

There is no solution, no "middle ground" that will work to satisfy everyone.

The only thing that matters in the end is that God's Truth is promoted. The farmer doesn't worry about being "fair" to the chaff. "Oh, but what if the chaff gangs up on his wheat and turns the tables?" Well, must have been because the farmer wasn't paying attention to the state of his crops...

amen :nod

[Aquila]

There must remain as little restraint on religion as possible. If you are counting on the red, white.and blue to maintain the liberties we have to meet, to express Christ's love and value, to teach our children the way that is narrow, then you place a very precious trust in the hands of some verifiable nutcases. Rome already seems to be rearing an ugly horn from the midst of the EU. This horn will allow any religion that aligns with it, to flourish. All real God fearing thought will be as faint and welcome as actual free speech is on our college campuses already. A few snowflakes amount to some fun and a day off, many for a long time can cause inconvenience, a storm if them with thunder and wind can bring catastrophe. I feel we are at the beginnings of the storm, this pope supports the snowflakes, this cannot bode well for the beleivers in the message of the Apostles- other than to solidify in our minds the fact that prophecy is true.

I dont care if its Wika that refuse to bake cakes, they deserve the right. Not because of any of any agreement with them, but because they are (wrong or not) a religion. A beleif system that beleives in a higher power. It was protected under the original negative rights assigned to gooberment as fences where it should not infringe.
I sincerly beleive that unless a great many are worn out by the continual whinning from our fringe of leftest victimization of literally everyone except good hard working, and God fearing folk. Then it is likely infringement will begin with those they see as marginal, and a threat. If they go after Wika they think they are a threat. As with many other programs done according to the book of Saul Alinski (spelling might be wrong)...this will appear sound and moderate to those not Wika....Until that is they start on the Baptists.....or more likely on the WPF or UPC, being smaller, seen as fringe organizations. Therefore I disagree with the MUST be restraints

I have to share my thoughts on this because I have mixed feelings.

First, I don't believe any non-profit church or religious 501(c) organization should be forced to participate in or facilitate anything that goes against their religious beliefs. Not under any circumstance.

However, if one is incorporated as a for profit business LLC that serves the general public, I'm hard pressed to justify any form of discrimination based on civil statutes governing discrimination. Imagine if your favorite "Christian" bakery refused to sell you a wedding cake because you're Apostolic, and they "don't do cult weddings". Why is your money not good enough to purchase your favorite kind of cake for your wedding simply based upon your religion? Where is your right to do business with legal tender in a free market? Should they be able to deny you that right, based only on your religion?

Now, if the bakery was a business that catered strictly to private and registered "Christian" members who subscribe to their goods and services, I can see them having a right to turn away anyone based on not being "members" holding Christian principles.

To not enforce some standard of non-discrimination, as it relates to businesses that serve the general public, could open a Pandora's box of everyone discriminating against everyone else over various religious convictions or individual convictions relating to religion.

http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/no-im-not-joking-i-am-a-catholic-i-cant-sell-you-condoms-please-try-register-8-she-is-muslim-so-take-your-ham-to-register-9-clerk.jpg

[Amanah]

It's pride month here at work, and in the monthly newsletter there are pics of girly looking guys and butch looking girls, I'm wondering when it's going to be Christian appreciation month.

[Aquila]

It's pride month here at work, and in the monthly newsletter there are pics of girly looking guys and butch looking girls, I'm wondering when it's going to be Christian appreciation month.

lol

You mean a sinful world is acting like... a sinful world? My stars! LOL

Let it go. Don't let anything disturb your peace. The world will be the world. Just focus on being a loving light to a lost world desperately looking for love in all the wrong places.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

There must remain as little restraint on religion as possible. If you are counting on the red, white.and blue to maintain the liberties we have to meet, to express Christ's love and value, to teach our children the way that is narrow, then you place a very precious trust in the hands of some verifiable nutcases. Rome already seems to be rearing an ugly horn from the midst of the EU. This horn will allow any religion that aligns with it, to flourish. All real God fearing thought will be as faint and welcome as actual free speech is on our college campuses already. A few snowflakes amount to some fun and a day off, many for a long time can cause inconvenience, a storm if them with thunder and wind can bring catastrophe. I feel we are at the beginnings of the storm, this pope supports the snowflakes, this cannot bode well for the beleivers in the message of the Apostles- other than to solidify in our minds the fact that prophecy is true.

I dont care if its Wika that refuse to bake cakes, they deserve the right. Not because of any of any agreement with them, but because they are (wrong or not) a religion. A beleif system that beleives in a higher power. It was protected under the original negative rights assigned to gooberment as fences where it should not infringe.
I sincerly beleive that unless a great many are worn out by the continual whinning from our fringe of leftest victimization of literally everyone except good hard working, and God fearing folk. Then it is likely infringement will begin with those they see as marginal, and a threat. If they go after Wika they think they are a threat. As with many other programs done according to the book of Saul Alinski (spelling might be wrong)...this will appear sound and moderate to those not Wika....Until that is they start on the Baptists.....or more likely on the WPF or UPC, being smaller, seen as fringe organizations. Therefore I disagree with the MUST be restraints



No. I wasn't being sarcastic in the examples Isited. Those are just the three most egregious practices of religion that I could think of that must remain outlawed for the good of our society.

If I try hard, I can thinK of more exampled AND none of the examples I listed are far-fetched.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

I am not looking for government to protect my religion, but by God's Grace, we live here and we are free. I do think there is a place for government to protect our human society from destructive and immoral religious practices.

[Wilsonwas]

I am not looking for government to protect my religion, but by God's Grace, we live here and we are free. I do think there is a place for government to protect our human society from destructive and immoral religious practices.

I do agree with you on that, perhaps my nearly ancap view can be a little restraining. I think we need to be careful with statements like ...."protect our human society from destructive an immoral religious practices"....
There are sheep that think we are destructive and immoral. The snowflakes we mock now, may be in power shortly. Hand them too much...and its off with our heads. They do seem to exibit an odd procivity to cog-dis....in that they will scream for the rights of some that toss gays off a roof, but will grill a christian baker in his own over for a refusal of service.
For this reason I seek as little law, and as little gooberment as is absolutely neccessary- allowing the non- agression principle as the primary directive for governance.

[Jito463]

However, if one is incorporated as a for profit business LLC that serves the general public, I'm hard pressed to justify any form of discrimination based on civil statutes governing discrimination. Imagine if your favorite "Christian" bakery refused to sell you a wedding cake because you're Apostolic, and they "don't do cult weddings". Why is your money not good enough to purchase your favorite kind of cake for your wedding simply based upon your religion? Where is your right to do business with legal tender in a free market? Should they be able to deny you that right, based only on your religion?

Here's the thing, if they had come in to buy a pre-made cake and just decorated it themselves, there wouldn't have been an issue. That they wanted a new cake made to their exact specifications, means they're asking the owner of the business to use their artistic talent, in order to make something that celebrates a lifestyle which is in direct opposition to said owners beliefs.

Imagine going to a Muslim or Jewish bakery and asking them to make a cake with a pig on the top, and writing "I love bacon" around it. Shouldn't they have the right to refuse that, due to their dietary and religious beliefs? This case is no different. They weren't asking them to just sell them a cake, they were asking an artist to use their talents in violation of their beliefs. That's why this is wrong.

[Aquila]

Here's the thing, if they had come in to buy a pre-made cake and just decorated it themselves, there wouldn't have been an issue. That they wanted a new cake made to their exact specifications, means they're asking the owner of the business to use their artistic talent, in order to make something that celebrates a lifestyle which is in direct opposition to said owners beliefs.

Imagine going to a Muslim or Jewish bakery and asking them to make a cake with a pig on the top, and writing "I love bacon" around it. Shouldn't they have the right to refuse that, due to their dietary and religious beliefs? This case is no different. They weren't asking them to just sell them a cake, they were asking an artist to use their talents in violation of their beliefs. That's why this is wrong.

We choose how to look at things. It's a choice. Don't let anyone tell you how you must view or respond to life. Me personally, I'd sell them the cake. As a Christian baker, I'd strive to make them the best cake ever. An example of Christian craftsmanship. I'd show them love and human to human respect. Yet all the while I was making it, I'd pray that God move in their lives and do what He must to help them change their direction in life. I might even weep for their souls while decorating it. I'd not feel it was a celebration of their lifestyle. I'd see it as my service to the lost. I might even invite them to church.

Jesus was a carpenter. It wouldn't be unimaginable to think that at some point the Romans contracted Him to make crosses.

Remember when being a Christian was more than being political? More than a protest, an outrage, a social agenda? Why do Christian business owners choose to identify their businesses as "Christian"? It used to be to express their desire to serve the community with excellence, tenderness, and grace. Now, it's almost like the business is merely a means to serve self and one's politics. We're actually allowing our politics to become our religion.

If a Muslim or Jewish baker did the same, I'd feel the same. A cake celebrating pork? It's not pork. It's just a cake. They are paying for the expression, they will own it, not the baker. It's not being made as a favor, or on account of the baker's desire in any way. It's business. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with a swine on it, limit designs, no specialty cakes. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a sinful weddings, they can choose not to do any wedding cakes. One can stick to convictions without descrimination.

Where does it end? A medic refusing to do CPR on a gay man because such are worthy of death?

We're a society. We're America. There has to be some measure of common sense and civility, or our society will only continue to fracture until we crumble into civil chaos.

[Jito463]

Where does it end? A medic refusing to do CPR on a gay man because such are worthy of death?

Leave it to Aquila to jump to the highest levels of hyperbole, in order to stretch his "point" until it breaks from reality. :ohplease

[n david]

Leave it to Aquila to jump to the highest levels of hyperbole, in order to stretch his "point" until it breaks from reality. :ohplease
Yep.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Leave it to Aquila to jump to the highest levels of hyperbole, in order to stretch his "point" until it breaks from reality. :ohplease

Yep.

Thing is, what he is talking about wouldn't be that far of a stretch from reality if we did have a Constitution and a system of laws intended to govern a PLURALISTIC society.

[Wilsonwas]

We choose how to look at things. It's a choice. Don't let anyone tell you how you must view or respond to life. Me personally, I'd sell them the cake. As a Christian baker, I'd strive to make them the best cake ever. An example of Christian craftsmanship. I'd show them love and human to human respect. Yet all the while I was making it, I'd pray that God move in their lives and do what He must to help them change their direction in life. I might even weep for their souls while decorating it. I'd not feel it was a celebration of their lifestyle. I'd see it as my service to the lost. I might even invite them to church.

Jesus was a carpenter. It wouldn't be unimaginable to think that at some point the Romans contracted Him to make crosses.

Remember when being a Christian was more than being political? More than a protest, an outrage, a social agenda? Why do Christian business owners choose to identify their businesses as "Christian"? It used to be to express their desire to serve the community with excellence, tenderness, and grace. Now, it's almost like the business is merely a means to serve self and one's politics. We're actually allowing our politics to become our religion.

If a Muslim or Jewish baker did the same, I'd feel the same. A cake celebrating pork? It's not pork. It's just a cake. They are paying for the expression, they will own it, not the baker. It's not being made as a favor, or on account of the baker's desire in any way. It's business. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with a swine on it, limit designs, no specialty cakes. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a sinful weddings, they can choose not to do any wedding cakes. One can stick to convictions without descrimination.

Where does it end? A medic refusing to do CPR on a gay man because such are worthy of death?

We're a society. We're America. There has to be some measure of common sense and civility, or our society will only continue to fracture until we crumble into civil chaos.
I can agree with the sentiment, just not the idea there should be a law for it.

[Jito463]

Thing is, what he is talking about wouldn't be that far of a stretch from reality if we did have a Constitution and a system of laws intended to govern a PLURALISTIC society.

It is a stretch, when I'm talking about artistic expression and he jumps straight to homicide. :foottap :smack

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

It is a stretch, when I'm talking about artistic expression and he jumps straight to homicide. :foottap :smack

It can happen and this is why we need a balanced system of laws so that basic human dignity is protected and immoralities committed in the name of religion are stymied.

[Jito463]

It can happen and this is why we need a balanced system of laws so that basic human dignity is protected and immoralities committed in the name of religion are stymied.

There's already laws against homicide! Why do we need yet more laws? What is with the left and wanting more and more laws, when we already have laws that deal with the problems which often aren't enforced currently anyway?!

You also keep skipping over the hyperbolic jump from artistry to homicide. :smack

[Aquila]

Leave it to Aquila to jump to the highest levels of hyperbole, in order to stretch his "point" until it breaks from reality. :ohplease

The question was, where does it end?

[Aquila]

It is a stretch, when I'm talking about artistic expression and he jumps straight to homicide. :foottap :smack

I only went to the extreme after asking, where does it end?

Where is the line?

[Aquila]

Besides, aren't wedding cakes originally based on a "pagan" practice? LOL

[Jito463]

I only went to the extreme after asking, where does it end?

No, I think you went to the extreme when you talked about eating cheerios naked with your not-wife. :smack

This was you being hyperbolic and not even addressing the very issue I brought up. Like a typical leftist, you want to control the dialogue and the narrative, and don't want to address a comment that actually contains a valid counter-point to yours.

[aegsm76]

The SCOTUS gave us a little hint of how they might rule in a "fair" case.
However, they took the easy way out which was provided for them by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The hint came in where they were talking about compelled speech. If the store was selling tires, which were already made and just waiting to be sold, then there would have been no reason (except for discrimination) to withhold the sale/service.
However, since the cake was still to be made and it would be uniquely created, it would be compelled speech to force Jack to do something against his religious code.
Sort of like hiring a group of Orthodox Jewish Musicians and forcing them to sing Christian Songs.
I would suggest all of you go and read the SCOTUS transcript of this case.
It is not that long and is rather interesting.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

There's already laws against homicide! Why do we need yet more laws? What is with the left and wanting more and more laws, when we already have laws that deal with the problems which often aren't enforced currently anyway?!

You also keep skipping over the hyperbolic jump from artistry to homicide. :smack

It's not just homicide with which we have to be concerned about-- but will you please explain again your "artistry" slant?

[Esaias]

I do agree with you on that, perhaps my
For this reason I seek as little law, and as little gooberment as is absolutely neccessary- allowing the non- agression principle as the primary directive for governance.

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. "Anarcho capitalism" is a form of idolatry, as it seeks to dethrone God from His rightful place as Supreme Magistrate over all others. King of kings and Lord of lords, and all that.

[Jito463]

It's not just homicide with which we have to be concerned about-- but will you please explain again your "artistry" slant?

*sigh*

Here's the thing, if they had come in to buy a pre-made cake and just decorated it themselves, there wouldn't have been an issue. That they wanted a new cake made to their exact specifications, means they're asking the owner of the business to use their artistic talent, in order to make something that celebrates a lifestyle which is in direct opposition to said owners beliefs.

Imagine going to a Muslim or Jewish bakery and asking them to make a cake with a pig on the top, and writing "I love bacon" around it. Shouldn't they have the right to refuse that, due to their dietary and religious beliefs? This case is no different. They weren't asking them to just sell them a cake, they were asking an artist to use their talents in violation of their beliefs. That's why this is wrong.

Gee, I'm so glad people take time to read a thread before responding.

[Aquila]

No, I think you went to the extreme when you talked about eating cheerios naked with your not-wife. :smack

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal. This forum needs to be regulated, I mean, where's the admin? I pray you do know, more people down through history have been married without a statist marriage license than with one. So, I guess me and my "non-wife" are in good company. :thumbsup

Of course, statists like you typically think the state must legislate every human decision known to man...unless it gives you the power to discriminate.

And I've provided plenty of links, references, etc. pointing to this growing trend in conservatism. Of course, you don't believe God alone unites a man and woman. You believe He needs Caesar to unite a man and woman. That's what these conservatives are standing against.

This was you being hyperbolic and not even addressing the very issue I brought up. Like a typical leftist, you want to control the dialogue and the narrative, and don't want to address a comment that actually contains a valid counter-point to yours.

Ummmm… go back and read my responses. I shared my concerns with what you posted. I only asked, where does it end? Aaaaannnnd…. you still refusing to answer, in addition to going personal.

And no matter how logical any question is asked from this point, you'll obsess over eating breakfast naked and a hyperbolic statement to keep from having to have actual dialogue.

I expected you to laugh at my question about a medic refusing to treat a gay person, and then answer the question. Not go personal.

I think if I ever own a business... no Apostolics will be served because you guys have become utterly offensive to my sensibilities. You guys have turned the entire movement into a den of vipers where friendly conversation of differing views cannot be had. I took a few days away from this place and talked with rational people. Not all agreed with me, but they were far friendlier than so many here. I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

Oh well, I expected a rational conversation. I was wrong again.

[n david]

I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9nldpbRjX1qesugk.gif

https://media3.giphy.com/media/TQg9Yt3rpzjP2/200.gif

[Aquila]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9nldpbRjX1qesugk.gif

https://media3.giphy.com/media/TQg9Yt3rpzjP2/200.gif

Yep, clearly you've become the very example of balanced maturity in adult discussion.


https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKWDGfvUWb9FMZi/source.gif

[aegsm76]

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal. This forum needs to be regulated, I mean, where's the admin? I pray you do know, more people down through history have been married without a statist marriage license than with one. So, I guess me and my "non-wife" are in good company. :thumbsup

Of course, statists like you typically think the state must legislate every human decision known to man...unless it gives you the power to discriminate.

And I've provided plenty of links, references, etc. pointing to this growing trend in conservatism. Of course, you don't believe God alone unites a man and woman. You believe He needs Caesar to unite a man and woman. That's what these conservatives are standing against.



Ummmm… go back and read my responses. I shared my concerns with what you posted. I only asked, where does it end? Aaaaannnnd…. you still refusing to answer, in addition to going personal.

And no matter how logical any question is asked from this point, you'll obsess over eating breakfast naked and a hyperbolic statement to keep from having to have actual dialogue.

I expected you to laugh at my question about a medic refusing to treat a gay person, and then answer the question. Not go personal.

I think if I ever own a business... no Apostolics will be served because you guys have become utterly offensive to my sensibilities. You guys have turned the entire movement into a den of vipers where friendly conversation of differing views cannot be had. I took a few days away from this place and talked with rational people. Not all agreed with me, but they were far friendlier than so many here. I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

Oh well, I expected a rational conversation. I was wrong again.

A - I think you are responding because you feel you were personally attacked.
And it is a little over the top response.
Well, no, it is a lot over the top.
Sort of like the "shaking the dust of this forum off my feet" response.

[n david]

Yep, clearly you've become the very example of balanced maturity in adult discussion.

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal.

Irony: Dude "going personal" right after complaining about someone "going personal" against him.

[Jito463]

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal. This forum needs to be regulated, I mean, where's the admin?

Have I said anything that you haven't said yourself? You are the one who posted that information on the forums to begin with, so I don't see how you're interpreting my reposting your own words as some kind of personal attack.

I pray you do know, more people down through history have been married without a statist marriage license than with one. So, I guess me and my "non-wife" are in good company. :thumbsup

Again, I was going by your own words that you weren't married. Should I be blamed for repeating your own comments back to you?

Of course, statists like you typically think the state must legislate every human decision known to man...unless it gives you the power to discriminate.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? I absolutely DON'T want any more government interference than necessary. How in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that I want more government regulations? Have you even read any of my posts?

And I've provided plenty of links, references, etc. pointing to this growing trend in conservatism. Of course, you don't believe God alone unites a man and woman. You believe He needs Caesar to unite a man and woman. That's what these conservatives are standing against.

Now we're getting way off-topic. Also, you're wrong.

Ummmm… go back and read my responses. I shared my concerns with what you posted. I only asked, where does it end?

No, you made an over-the-top response that was not even remotely similar to the scenario I presented.

Aaaaannnnd…. you still refusing to answer

Because your scenario was so completely out in left field compared to what I was talking about, that it's not even worth responding to. There is no comparison between my scenario and yours. None. It's like comparing an apple to a Volvo.

I expected you to laugh at my question about a medic refusing to treat a gay person, and then answer the question. Not go personal.

What question? Whether someone should be allowed to commit homicide? That's not a question, that's a comedy routine (and a poorly done one, at that, which is why I didn't laugh).

I think if I ever own a business... no Apostolics will be served because you guys have become utterly offensive to my sensibilities.

Your prerogative. Did you expect me to be upset by that?

You guys have turned the entire movement into a den of vipers where friendly conversation of differing views cannot be had.

Differing views? You literally jumped from artistic expression to MURDER! That's rational and reasonable in your mind?

I took a few days away from this place and talked with rational people. Not all agreed with me, but they were far friendlier than so many here.

I think you and I have very different definitions of rational. Comparing baking a cake to murder is not rational by any sane definition.

I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

I've long since decided that for myself, but then I removed the block on a certain user. I believe that was my fatal mistake.

[Aquila]

Have I said anything that you haven't said yourself? You are the one who posted that information on the forums to begin with, so I don't see how you're interpreting my reposting your own words as some kind of personal attack.

It is the manner in which it is brought up. It is also the distortion of the point.

Again, I was going by your own words that you weren't married. Should I be blamed for repeating your own comments back to you?

Our union was blessed by our elders and we also have all powers of attorney, wills, and property agreements in place to secure most rights that couples in civil marriages enjoy. We're not just "shacking up". We followed the path of Quakers who have married without state involvement. So, the little word "civil" is of much value here. No, we are not in a "civil" marriage. We are in privately established marriage established in old-time Quaker fashion.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? I absolutely DON'T want any more government interference than necessary. How in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that I want more government regulations? Have you even read any of my posts?

Ah, then we are in agreement at least that far.

Now we're getting way off-topic. Also, you're wrong.

We'll, if you don't believe that marriage should be under the control of Caesar, as I do, why say my wife is my "non-wife"? We followed the path of Quakers and other libertarian types who have stablished marital unions outside of state control.

No, you made an over-the-top response that was not even remotely similar to the scenario I presented.

Because your scenario was so completely out in left field compared to what I was talking about, that it's not even worth responding to. There is no comparison between my scenario and yours. None. It's like comparing an apple to a Volvo.

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult. It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.


Your prerogative. Did you expect me to be upset by that?

No, just curious of your response. I mean, if we can all just discriminate based on religion, why not, right? lol

Differing views? You literally jumped from artistic expression to MURDER! That's rational and reasonable in your mind?

Again...

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult. It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.

I think you and I have very different definitions of rational. Comparing baking a cake to murder is not rational by any sane definition.

We agree that it would be irrational. But can you be willing to walk us backwards from that extreme and show us where the line is to be drawn? Where does the right to discriminate end? I posted this picture a few posts ago. At what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/no-im-not-joking-i-am-a-catholic-i-cant-sell-you-condoms-please-try-register-8-she-is-muslim-so-take-your-ham-to-register-9-clerk.jpg

I've long since decided that for myself, but then I removed the block on a certain user. I believe that was my fatal mistake.

I would like to say thank you for a more thoughtful response to me. You weren't overtly nasty or mocking. I can respect that, even if we disagree on some things. I hope I helped clarify some things and my intentions with this post.

Can you elaborate on at what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

[Jito463]

Our union was blessed by our elders and we also have all powers of attorney, wills, and property agreements in place to secure most rights that couples in civil marriages enjoy. We're not just "shacking up". We followed the path of Quakers who have married without state involvement. So, the little word "civil" is of much value here. No, we are not in a "civil" marriage. We are in privately established marriage established in old-time Quaker fashion.

I didn't see that post, all I knew was that you said you weren't married. I couldn't care less whether your marriage is by certificate from the state or not, all I understood was that you weren't married to the woman you were living with. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult.

I never interpreted it as such, but it was completely outlandish.

It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.

We agree that it would be irrational. But can you be willing to walk us backwards from that extreme and show us where the line is to be drawn? Where does the right to discriminate end? I posted this picture a few posts ago. At what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

You want to know where I draw the line? Freedom. I always err on the side of freedom. That's my guiding philosophy in these matters. Does the bakeries refusal to make a cake for them constitute a breach of freedom? No, because they can always go somewhere else for the cake. Does their demands that the bakery make a cake for them violate the bakeries freedom? Yes, because it forces them to violate their religious principles.

So the answer to your question is - and will continue to be - freedom.

I would like to say thank you for a more thoughtful response to me. You weren't overtly nasty or mocking. I can respect that, even if we disagree on some things. I hope I helped clarify some things and my intentions with this post.

And it was never my intent to be nasty or mocking. The example I brought up before was in response to your mention of extreme comments. I simply delved back into my memory and grabbed the most extreme thing from you that I could recall.

Can you elaborate on at what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

Whenever one persons desires intrudes on another persons freedoms, that's where I draw the line. It's the same with my attitude on gun ownership. Another persons fears does not mean I should be forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms.

Freedom| <-line

[Wilsonwas]

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. "Anarcho capitalism" is a form of idolatry, as it seeks to dethrone God from His rightful place as Supreme Magistrate over all others. King of kings and Lord of lords, and all that.


The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.

[Apostolic1ness]

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.
1tim 2:2, 1peter2:13, 17

[Esaias]

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
(Deuteronomy 17:14-15)


Only native Christians are eligible to serve as governing magistrates in a society founded by Christians. It is not lawful for either foreignors or non Christians to serve as ruling magistrates. And, this is actually how it used to be in the colonies, and even among many of the states after Independence.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
(Psalms 2:1-12)

It is the heathen who seek political independence from God and Christ. Such a goal is a "vain imagination". All rulers are to embrace Christ and serve God, otherwise they are under His judicial wrath. All magistrates are to follow the law of God (they are to "be instructed" by God), they are not at liberty to follow any heathen philosophy like "liberal democracy", "humanism", "socialism", or "anarcho capitalism". They are to follow the Bible.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
(Ephesians 3:8-11)

The purpose of apostolic preaching is to inform the ruling magistrates of the manifold wisdom of God. The church's mission is to proclaim the good news of Christ's KINGDOM to all and sundry, including the civil powers that be.

Note: "Powers and principalities" are political magistrates (Titus 3:1)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
(Romans 13:1-6)

The civil power is ordained by God, specifically for the purpose of punishing evil and protecting and promoting good (good and evil are defined by God in His Word). That is the purpose of civil government and especially the enforcement power of the state.

You hypothetise that Muslims might take over the state power. Well, guess what? Antichrist humanists have already done that (before you were even born), and the lawlessness and insanity we see rampant in society today is the direct result of their religion being enforced as "public policy". Regardless of what people wish to fantasise about, this nation was originally established as thirteen colonies of Christian societies. In spite of the usurpation by the Freemasons with their "federalist constitution" (as warned about by Patrick Henry and others of the time), the nation itself remained and remains a Christian society. Especially in light of the fact that ALL nations are commanded to repent and serve God to begin with. Therefore, any government not in line with God's Word is rebellion and sedition, plain and simple.

If we live in a society in rebellion and sedition against God, it is the duty of the church to inform that society of it's sedition and rebellion, and God's demands of repentance. This is called "preaching the Gospel". It is the message to everyone (including politicians and magistrates) that there is ONE LORD, the Lord Jesus Christ. Every single one of our nation's problems can be traced right back to a violation of the Word of God. In other words, our nation's problem is a SIN problem, and repentance is the answer.

"Jesus is the answer to our national problems!" Indeed, but what does that actually mean? It doesn't mean everyone join a megachurch, vote GOP, and send their money to some money grubbing fake televangelist. It means the nation must stop violating God's law, and start acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ not only in word but in deed. And for that to happen, Christians have to quit telling everyone that satan and his minions "have the right" to control everything, or that "Christians ought to just withdraw and worry about going to heaven when they die." They too need to repent, and start proclaiming the actual Bible Gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD.

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
(Isaiah 33:22)

And there you have all three branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive. For God's people, those roles are superintended by God Himself, not man, who are only His appointed agents responsible for carrying out His orders.

[Esaias]

You hypothetise that Muslims might take over the state power. Well, guess what? Antichrist humanists have already done that (before you were even born), and the lawlessness and insanity we see rampant in society today is the direct result of their religion being enforced as "public policy".



And how did this happen? Quite simply, Christians abandoned the field and surrendered to the humanists because they were infected with several varieties of heretical teachings, such as dispensationalism, pre trib rapturism, Russelism and other forms of imminent Adventism, and Pietism. All these teachings turned Christianity into an inward looking only religious philosophy, turning Christians into neurotic introverts concerned exclusively about "getting to heaven" (along with all the needed personal development aka "holiness", which got subverted from being actual separation to God - and His Word - and transformed into a religious sectarianism consisting primarily in a series of repeated emotional catharses signified by unique dress codes). And on the flip side, the heretical "modernism" that crept into Christendom which subtly transformed the Gospel and Christianity into political Marxism (marketed as "social justice" and "liberal theology") turned professing Christians into practicing Communists and useful idiots.

As Christendom abandoned any semblance of the actual LORDSHIP of Christ "over all", it has became a cult of personal self improvement either through permanent seeking of ecstasies, or through "dharma" (good works, the social gospel, progressivism, liberal Christianity, etc).

Asoka would be proud.

[Wilsonwas]

And when do you assume I was born, the socialists were already in charge prior to 1964?

[Aquila]

I didn't see that post, all I knew was that you said you weren't married. I couldn't care less whether your marriage is by certificate from the state or not, all I understood was that you weren't married to the woman you were living with. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.



I never interpreted it as such, but it was completely outlandish.





You want to know where I draw the line? Freedom. I always err on the side of freedom. That's my guiding philosophy in these matters. Does the bakeries refusal to make a cake for them constitute a breach of freedom? No, because they can always go somewhere else for the cake. Does their demands that the bakery make a cake for them violate the bakeries freedom? Yes, because it forces them to violate their religious principles.

So the answer to your question is - and will continue to be - freedom.

And it was never my intent to be nasty or mocking. The example I brought up before was in response to your mention of extreme comments. I simply delved back into my memory and grabbed the most extreme thing from you that I could recall.



Whenever one persons desires intrudes on another persons freedoms, that's where I draw the line. It's the same with my attitude on gun ownership. Another persons fears does not mean I should be forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms.

Freedom| <-line

I appreciate you and the spirit of your post. You make some important and thought provoking points.

I see it a little differently. If one is incorporated as a business, there are civil statutes that come into play. Statutes that legally prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, age, gender, and sexual orientation. I understand if a baker has convictions on a matter. But they are "on the clock", so to speak. They represent the business, not themselves at that time. A Christian cashier might no doubt find themselves selling cigarettes, condoms, Playboy, lotto tickets, even medications, etc. that violate Christian convictions. It's part of the job. They can seek a different job if it is too much for them to serve the entire community. The baker is a baker. Not a preacher, priest, or pastor. The bakery isn't incorporated as a non-profit religious organization like a church or synagogue. If selling gays a wedding cake is so strongly against their convictions, that is fine. But they can't discriminate. Meaning, they must treat all wedding cake orders the same. This means, they should cease selling wedding cakes entirely, so as to not discriminate. They can't have a shelf of wedding cakes with a small sign that reads, "No gays, Irish, cults, mixed couples, or divorcees may purchase." It's a business open to the general public. If they can't abide by laws and statutes that protect from discrimination, they can cease selling wedding cakes altogether, or, maybe a business open to the general public isn't right for them.

Everyone has rights. One is the right to religious conviction, another is a right not to be discriminated against based on religion, race, age, gender, and sexual orientation. A Christian baker has the right not to violate their convictions, but they do not have the right to discriminate in regards to how those convictions are practiced when functioning as a business open to the public. If one can't sell a wedding cake to gays, mixed couples, divorcees, or other faiths, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes at all, thereby treating all equally in the matter.

They can, and should, keep their convictions. However, they must apply those conviction evenly towards all, without discrimination.

If pork or porn is against my religion, it's not going to be on my shelves. If someone wants to order a swine cake praising bacon and that offends me, I'll sell no specialty cakes. I'll have a book of predetermined designes that we do sell.

[Jito463]

If one can't sell a wedding cake to gays, mixed couples, divorcees, or other faiths, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes at all, thereby treating all equally in the matter.

They can, and should, keep their convictions. However, they must apply those conviction evenly towards all, without discrimination.

You don't seem to be grasping my point, so let me try this from another angle.

Going back to the artistic expression argument, should a painter (which by definition makes unique works) be forced to paint something against their beliefs, just because they make themselves available to the public? Should they be forced to paint pictures of naked people, if that violates their beliefs?

What if it was a Muslim painter, and someone asked him/her to paint a picture of Mohammed (which they view as forbidden in their beliefs)? Would they be forced to do so because they have a business, or would their beliefs allow them to decline the work?

A wedding cake is no different, because it requires not just baking talents, but also artistic talents for the design elements. They didn't come in to buy a ready-made cake (which I'm sure the bakery would have sold to them), they wanted one designed specifically for their "wedding". They wanted to force the baker to use his artistic talents in violation of his beliefs.

Now do you get my point?

[Esaias]

And when do you assume I was born, the socialists were already in charge prior to 1964?

Try 1865.

[Aquila]

You don't seem to be grasping my point, so let me try this from another angle.

Going back to the artistic expression argument, should a painter (which by definition makes unique works) be forced to paint something against their beliefs, just because they make themselves available to the public? Should they be forced to paint pictures of naked people, if that violates their beliefs?

What if it was a Muslim painter, and someone asked him/her to paint a picture of Mohammed (which they view as forbidden in their beliefs)? Would they be forced to do so because they have a business, or would their beliefs allow them to decline the work?

A wedding cake is no different, because it requires not just baking talents, but also artistic talents for the design elements. They didn't come in to buy a ready-made cake (which I'm sure the bakery would have sold to them), they wanted one designed specifically for their "wedding". They wanted to force the baker to use his artistic talents in violation of his beliefs.

Now do you get my point?

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

All examples above are for the sake of conviction, yet they aren't being discriminatory.

This is of course if their business is open to all who walk in. Now, if privately contracted, independently of their open store, certainly they should have greater say and freedom in the details details of the work they can do.

[Esaias]

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

All examples above are for the sake of conviction, yet they aren't being discriminatory.

I thought you were some kind of anarchist? Which would mean you believe a baker should be able to bake whatever for whoever, or not, period.

But, once again, you side with the heathens and perverts against Christians and those who would identify as Libertarians.

Typical leftist hypocrisy. You rail against "religion being forced" on people while you demand humanism being forced on everyone. "Well, the baker can just not be a baker, hurr durr."

THIS is why no dialogue is possible. Your side wants us all re educated or dead, and we simply will not be either. Thus, the division in society is irreparable, there is no "one nation" left.

[Jito463]

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

In other words, you're advocating for a "do it our way, or don't do it at all" philosophy. Or in more common vernacular, "my way or the highway". In your world view, there's no room for personal decisions and responsibility, one must follow the state or not be allowed to do business.

That sound about right? Because even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly what you've presented here.

[Wilsonwas]

I thought you were some kind of anarchist? Which would mean you believe a baker should be able to bake whatever for whoever, or not, period.

But, once again, you side with the heathens and perverts against Christians and those who would identify as Libertarians.

Typical leftist hypocrisy. You rail against "religion being forced" on people while you demand humanism being forced on everyone. "Well, the baker can just not be a baker, hurr durr."

THIS is why no dialogue is possible. Your side wants us all re educated or dead, and we simply will not be either. Thus, the division in society is irreparable, there is no "one nation" left.

I am the Libertarian, borderline AnCap....thanks. I think all transactions should be voluntary. Persons that bake may do so or not for whatever reason they choose. If they are discriminatory- not only can the offended ignore them, but their supporters could say buy a mess of cupkakes for the sunday school kids. The market will make the decision if he propers or not. I think that as soon as you protect a class, or when there is discriminatory law against a class you elevate statism above individual, and group rights, and soon other laws will follow trying to balance a human condition that constantly tries by nature to improve things for themselves with little regard for others.
You cannot legislate equality of outcomes, because to do so you must be inequitable.

Here is a point I feel a Christian can show seperation. By treating people equitably, and looking out for the interests of those, even, from which you may receive no benifit from them. If someone crosses a line with your beleif system, you have the right to not associate, not do business with, but not to be unfair, or ungodly in your refusal.

I disagree with you that a gooberment of men, even godly, 1ness, men with lists of good things to wear, is desireable. To slightly correct a quote, All human power corrupts, Absolute human power corrupts absolutely. Only God by his perfect nature is exemp.

We shall forever disagree on that. Oh well, this, like my beard, my jeans, or my contemporary music, and my refusal to submit to persons having the title pastor, bishop, or pope, when I feel that they are simply trying to control my beleifs, rather than provide sound bible council, is simply an avoidence of tryanny of man or men. You have found- I think you said- you need the rules, you need a harsh and legalistic pastor. Very well....for you. I do not- but I'll argue for you to hsve a right to that. You would force me to cowtow to your view, that makes you the opposite of Aquila...in statist statements ...only in the color, flavor, and type of bondage you would choose for me.

[Esaias]

I You have found- I think you said- you need the rules, you need a harsh and legalistic pastor. Very well....for you..

What? I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

Can you support your libertarian anarcho-capitalist philosophy of government with a clear Biblical presentation? In other words, does the Bible teach libertarian anarcho-capitalism?

Is that the Kingdom we are to be preaching? A kingdom where anybody can do whatever they want as long as they don't "infringe on anyone else's freedom"?

Please present the Gospel of the Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist Kingdom.

[Esaias]

Sometimes I feel like I'm discussing politics and religion with the drunk guys at the local pub...

[Esaias]

I am the Libertarian, borderline AnCap...

I disagree with you that a gooberment of men, even godly, 1ness, men with lists of good things to wear, is desireable.

So instead you prefer a government of ungodly devil possessed antichrists?

Amazing what passes for Christianity, much less rational thought, these days.

[Aquila]

In other words, you're advocating for a "do it our way, or don't do it at all" philosophy. Or in more common vernacular, "my way or the highway". In your world view, there's no room for personal decisions and responsibility, one must follow the state or not be allowed to do business.

That sound about right? Because even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly what you've presented here.

What I'm saying is that when one incorporates, they agree to abide by existing civil statutes in most states that include not being able to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of religion, gender, age, race, or sexuality. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker because of how they were treated with animosity by Colorado authorities. The SCOTUS did indicate that their decision wasn't a precedent to follow in every case, and also hinted that there was no blanket right to discriminate based on one's religion in business affairs.

If one's religion keeps them from serving the general public in business without discrimination, they can establish a private service and cater only to members or churches, refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, or seek a different trade.

Agree or not, incorporation to do business with the general public comes with strings attached, one is that you can't descriminate based on race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation.

We are to obey every ordinance of man.

Now, one can strive to change antidescrimination laws, but one cannot refuse to provide services as agreed upon.

[Wilsonwas]

What? I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

Can you support your libertarian anarcho-capitalist philosophy of government with a clear Biblical presentation? In other words, does the Bible teach libertarian anarcho-capitalism?

Is that the Kingdom we are to be preaching? A kingdom where anybody can do whatever they want as long as they don't "infringe on anyone else's freedom"?

Please present the Gospel of the Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist Kingdom.


Momentarily confused you with another poster. But the con guys here all argue the same tired points.

[Aquila]

If business was entirely voluntary it would create chaos catering to biggotry and haters. Imagine driving though an area and being parched, dehydrating, and seeking Power Aid. But every business you've stopped at won't sell you and your kids Power Aid because you're white. Antidescrimination laws exist to prevent this.

[Wilsonwas]

Momentarily confused you with another poster. But the con guys here all argue the same tired points.

Id rather not type a wall of text, so here is some of what /why I think that Libertarian view of gooberment is compatible with and might be preferable over the general bible belt view that prefers the GOP.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/the-christian-case-for-libertarianism/

[Jito463]

Momentarily confused you with another poster. But the con guys here all argue the same tired points.

Funny, we could say the same thing about you libs. :blah

If business was entirely voluntary it would create chaos catering to biggotry and haters. Imagine driving though an area and being parched, dehydrating, and seeking Power Aid. But every business you've stopped at won't sell you and your kids Power Aid because you're white. Antidescrimination laws exist to prevent this.

And you're still refusing to get the point. This isn't about retail sales, where one has a product available to sell already with no qualifiers. A ready made product is just that, ready made.

This is about artistic freedom. Designing a cake is an artistic expression, as such they should have control over their "art". I don't get why you keep trying to conflate the two issues as if they're one and the same. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just that dense?

[Wilsonwas]

If business was entirely voluntary it would create chaos catering to biggotry and haters. Imagine driving though an area and being parched, dehydrating, and seeking Power Aid. But every business you've stopped at won't sell you and your kids Power Aid because you're white. Antidescrimination laws exist to prevent this.
A business thst wants to stay in business would be very careful about angering the market, if the market were the only power in force to decide if it thrives or dies.
Blue law, and segregation existed and florished with the assistance of, and by the force of gooberment. Seperste but equal, remember,....
Then we turned into a victum society where government was to take the job of legislating morality, and made efforts to equalize outcomes, via anti-discrimination policy, and forcefully by quota etc.. All where men our concerned will never be equal, attempts to do so only result in greater inequity. This is more subtle but still seperate but equal, its still, classism, racism, and inequity.
Most business would sell you your Power Aid because if they did not, people would not purchase from them, and they would go out of business. People are not naturally racist, sexist, bigoted or inequitable, except as sin has allowed for greed, and a want of power to twist them.

[Esaias]

Momentarily confused you with another poster. But the con guys here all argue the same tired points.

Nobody on this board argues the points I'm making regarding government's responsibility towards God. As far as I know, I'm the only one here arguing for Biblical theonomy.

"The con guys"? Really? Physician, heal thyself.

[Esaias]

I don't get why you keep trying to conflate the two issues as if they're one and the same. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just that dense?

Because communist agitators aren't about the business of debate or discussion, their job is to shout propaganda until the bayonet replaces the PA system.

[Aquila]

Funny, we could say the same thing about you libs. :blah



And you're still refusing to get the point. This isn't about retail sales, where one has a product available to sell already with no qualifiers. A ready made product is just that, ready made.

This is about artistic freedom. Designing a cake is an artistic expression, as such they should have control over their "art". I don't get why you keep trying to conflate the two issues as if they're one and the same. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just that dense?

I see that as possibly being too subjective a thing upon which to base a ruling. I could argue that my "artistic expression" is offended by any number of things and no one can argue otherwise. I'd rather deal with the cold hard facts. If one is incorporated as a business to provide goods and services to the general public, they should be bound by all antidiscrimination statutes that come with such incorporation in a given state or locality.

[Aquila]

A business thst wants to stay in business would be very careful about angering the market, if the market were the only power in force to decide if it thrives or dies.
Blue law, and segregation existed and florished with the assistance of, and by the force of gooberment. Seperste but equal, remember,....
Then we turned into a victum society where government was to take the job of legislating morality, and made efforts to equalize outcomes, via anti-discrimination policy, and forcefully by quota etc.. All where men our concerned will never be equal, attempts to do so only result in greater inequity. This is more subtle but still seperate but equal, its still, classism, racism, and inequity.
Most business would sell you your Power Aid because if they did not, people would not purchase from them, and they would go out of business. People are not naturally racist, sexist, bigoted or inequitable, except as sin has allowed for greed, and a want of power to twist them.

I agree with you quite a bit.

However, that does little to protect the individuals being discriminated against real time from harm, financial hardship, or emotional duress. We're a civilized society. I though Christian businesses were willing to serve all people with excellence in their trade as a service to the greater community until this sort of thing became an issue.

I've only been discriminated against personally once. There was a bookstore called, Beavercreek Christian Bookstore, on Dayton-Xenia Road. It was owned by a man named Terence McLean . I had shopped there quite a bit. The guy had a lot of older titles. Old school Dispensationalist stuff. He was solidly King James Only and so he had a great selection of nearly any King James Bible you could ask for. I loved the store. Their Sunday School supplies were second to none. Well, one day I think he noticed the way my wife was dressed and asked me what church we attended. I told him that we attended the Apostolic Lighthouse Church. With that, he seemed to become very angry. He said, "I don't think we have anything that would interest you." I said, "What's wrong Terry?" We had talked cordially about the Lord and I thought we had a decent business friendship. He said, "You and your wife can leave. Your heresy isn't welcome here." It really shook me and my wife up. I said, "Terry, I've shopped here quite a bit. I also value your friendship, I don't understand...". That's when he cut me off and threatened to call the police. So, we politely left. It was very upsetting and unsettling. My wife was in tears. It also felt like I lost a friend. Not to mention, we were no longer welcome in one of the best little Christian book stores in town. All because of what church we attended. They went out of business a couple years later. It was a real shame.

[Jito463]

they should be bound by all antidiscrimination statutes

There's where we disagree, I don't believe there should be any statues that elevate one group above another. By saying you're not allowed to discriminate against blacks (as an example), you then have to prove that you're kicking out a customer because of some other reason than that they're black.

It used to be standard that a company could refuse service for any reason, now a company has to worry that they'll be accused of racism/sexism/whateverism for refusing service. It's guilty until proven innocent, and the militant left will use that presumption of guilt to rain terror down on a business owners head.

Is that really the world you want to live in? It sure isn't what MLK advocated for.

[Aquila]

There's where we disagree, I don't believe there should be any statues that elevate one group above another. By saying you're not allowed to discriminate against blacks (as an example), you then have to prove that you're kicking out a customer because of some other reason than that they're black.

It used to be standard that a company could refuse service for any reason, now a company has to worry that they'll be accused of racism/sexism/whateverism for refusing service. It's guilty until proven innocent, and the militant left will use that presumption of guilt to rain terror down on a business owners head.

Is that really the world you want to live in? It sure isn't what MLK advocated for.

You know, I've reflected on this quite a bit and bounced things around in my head from both sides. I just noticed something... in every case I've read about, the Christian business person declined from performing a given service and recommended others in their field who might be willing to perform such services. I thought that was somewhat civil and reasonable. And then I saw this video. This video has me reconsidering my position on this. I'll share it, I already know you will agree with it, but I want to just share it in a spirit of exchange in the conversation, kinda like telling you what I'm considering. Feel free to elaborate on any part of this or share your thoughts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0kJqYJN1ck

[n david]

:rolleyes2

[Jito463]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0kJqYJN1ck

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He uses his artistic talents to create a unique product for the customer, but shouldn't be forced to use his talents against his wishes or beliefs. In the video, another print shop owned by lesbians came out in support of him, because even they recognized the direction things would go if he lost. He said he refused to print a shirt once that read "Homosexuality is a sin", imagine if the lesbians were forced by law to print something like that?

If he loses his case, that could very well happen. That's why I'm opposed to any of these "anti-discrimination" statutes, because all they do is elevate one group above another with special privileges, under the guise of "fairness".

His case is even worse, because now the federal government is getting involved when the courts have already ruled in his favor. That's a direct violation of his right to free speech (the courts long ago ruled that artistic expression is a form of speech).

[Aquila]

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He uses his artistic talents to create a unique product for the customer, but shouldn't be forced to use his talents against his wishes or beliefs. In the video, another print shop owned by lesbians came out in support of him, because even they recognized the direction things would go if he lost. He said he refused to print a shirt once that read "Homosexuality is a sin", imagine if the lesbians were forced by law to print something like that?

If he loses his case, that could very well happen. That's why I'm opposed to any of these "anti-discrimination" statutes, because all they do is elevate one group above another with special privileges, under the guise of "fairness".

His case is even worse, because now the federal government is getting involved when the courts have already ruled in his favor. That's a direct violation of his right to free speech (the courts long ago ruled that artistic expression is a form of speech).

I completely agree with the T-shirt maker. Clearly his work is his artistic expression. I guess I never considered baking a wedding cake one's artistic expression. But, even though I'm criticized over it, I'm willing to reconsider the issue upon hearing new information, or information framed in a way that brings a new perspective.

It appears that these Christian business owners are truly trying to serve all, even if all they can do within their convictions is try and help the customers find another provider. It doesn't sound like these guys are just throwing people out of their shops.

I guess what I'm wondering now is, at what point does one's business cease to be artistic expression? For example, let's say a small private motel owned by Christians is the only motel with vacancies for many miles and a gay or lesbian couple stops in the dead of night needing a room because they are too tired to drive to the next town. Can the motel owner deny them a room? Will the gay couple be forced to sleep in their car? What if they aren't lesbians and they are just best friends on a road trip, and the motel owner thinks that they are lesbians?

Is there a line? If so, where is the line?

[jfrog]

I completely agree with the T-shirt maker. Clearly his work is his artistic expression. I guess I never considered baking a wedding cake one's artistic expression. But, even though I'm criticized over it, I'm willing to reconsider the issue upon hearing new information, or information framed in a way that brings a new perspective.

It appears that these Christian business owners are truly trying to serve all, even if all they can do within their convictions is try and help the customers find another provider. It doesn't sound like these guys are just throwing people out of their shops.

I guess what I'm wondering now is, at what point does one's business cease to be artistic expression? For example, let's say a small private motel owned by Christians is the only motel with vacancies for many miles and a gay or lesbian couple stops in the dead of night needing a room because they are too tired to drive to the next town. Can the motel owner deny them a room? Will the gay couple be forced to sleep in their car? What if they aren't lesbians and they are just best friends on a road trip, and the motel owner thinks that they are lesbians?

Is there a line? If so, where is the line?

Should a business be forced to associate with anyone they don’t want to?
Should an individual be forced to associate with anyone they don’t want to?

Now suppose the person in question was a neo nazi skin head with swastikas tattooed on his neck looking for a room. Suppose it is a black or Jewish family owned hotel. Is it right that they must offer him a room?

[Aquila]

Should a business be forced to associate with anyone they don’t want to?
Should an individual be forced to associate with anyone they don’t want to?

Now suppose the person in question was a neo nazi skin head with swastikas tattooed on his neck looking for a room. Suppose it is a black or Jewish family owned hotel. Is it right that they must offer him a room?

Those are important questions.

There's really no way to know if someone is actually a neo-Nazi skin head. We can see if one is wearing swastikas tattooed on their body, but for all we know, he could be a pastor with a dark past filled with racial hatred. So, I don't see any criteria with which to judge with 100% accuracy here. And what if the motel/hotel in question is the only place for miles with a vacancy? Is this human being to sleep in their car out behind some seedy business somewhere? What if they are robbed or harmed on account of this? Is there any liability?

But you're post begs my question... Where is the line to be drawn? For example, what if a Muslim cashier refuses to ring up a person because they are buying an Easter ham. Sure, the next register might ring up the ham, but refuse to ring up the gift Bible, because that cashier is an atheist. lol

Or worse, what if a doctor refuses to treat a patient based on their sexuality or religion?

I know of a woman who has a condition that gives her excessively painful and bloody monthlies. Her doctor put her on birth control bills to regulate her cycles and bring things under control. However, the company she has worked for now for nearly 17 years just chose not to provide insurance that covers birth control pills on account of being "Catholic". But here's the rub, she's not Catholic. She's had coverage for this for some time. And now that coverage has ceased. In order to avoid the extremely painful and bloody menses, she now pays higher costs out of pocket. I know that Catholics oppose birth control, but in this case the birth control pills are not for birth control, but to help regulate a medical condition. I'm sure their family with manage. But I'm just showing how a blanket policy based on religious conviction can unjustly fall upon the shoulders of people who aren't even in violation of the companies principles.

Where should the line be drawn?

P.S.
I've noticed on my Facebook more and more instances of my Apostolic friends stating that they were given ............ service at restaurants, etc. Could it be that their standards make them look Christian, and people are becoming offended on account that "Christian" voters are taking so many unpopular candidates with unpopular policies over the top to win elections? What happens when Christians are invited to leave numerous establishments based on the very rules they are vehemently defending?

And why is our society, here in 2018, clamoring to re-establish discriminatory practices the previous generations of Americans fought so hard to reform? It's like we're shifting back to the 40's and 50's.

[jfrog]

Those are important questions.

There's really no way to know if someone is actually a neo-Nazi skin head. We can see if one is wearing swastikas tattooed on their body, but for all we know, he could be a pastor with a dark past filled with racial hatred. So, I don't see any criteria with which to judge with 100% accuracy here. And what if the motel/hotel in question is the only place for miles with a vacancy? Is this human being to sleep in their car out behind some seedy business somewhere? What if they are robbed or harmed on account of this? Is there any liability?

How about you take the situation at face value and worry less about obscuring the hypothetical scenario by asking how they know. Are you good blacks and jews having to board a neo Nazi under their hotel roof?

But you're post begs my question... Where is the line to be drawn? For example, what if a Muslim cashier refuses to ring up a person because they are buying an Easter ham. Sure, the next register might ring up the ham, but refuse to ring up the gift Bible, because that cashier is an atheist. lol

Then the Muslim should be fired by the business for not ringing up a customer the business wants.

Or worse, what if a doctor refuses to treat a patient based on their sexuality or religion?

You mean in an ER situation or just at a basic family practice? Because those are two very different things.

I know of a woman who has a condition that gives her excessively painful and bloody monthlies. Her doctor put her on birth control bills to regulate her cycles and bring things under control. However, the company she has worked for now for nearly 17 years just chose not to provide insurance that covers birth control pills on account of being "Catholic". But here's the rub, she's not Catholic. She's had coverage for this for some time. And now that coverage has ceased. In order to avoid the extremely painful and bloody menses, she now pays higher costs out of pocket. I know that Catholics oppose birth control, but in this case the birth control pills are not for birth control, but to help regulate a medical condition. I'm sure their family with manage. But I'm just showing how a blanket policy based on religious conviction can unjustly fall upon the shoulders of people who aren't even in violation of the companies principles.


She can always find a different job if she dislikes her current employers pay and benefits package.

Where should the line be drawn?

This is the most common liberal tactic. Talk about some arbitrary line and when it isn't immediately pinpointed then act like the position you are opposing is untenable.

The world works on principles, not lines. Principles will occasionaly be opposed to other principles even in the same philosophy. This is inevitable and is the origin of exceptions. (The opposition to any line).

P.S.
I've noticed on my Facebook more and more instances of my Apostolic friends stating that they were given ............ service at restaurants, etc. Could it be that their standards make them look Christian, and people are becoming offended on account that "Christian" voters are taking so many unpopular candidates with unpopular policies over the top to win elections?

Since we are guessing, my guess would be that they are known to be poor tippers.

What happens when Christians are invited to leave numerous establishments based on the very rules they are vehemently defending?

According to Matthew 5:10 they would be blessed

And why is our society, here in 2018, clamoring to re-establish discriminatory practices the previous generations of Americans fought so hard to reform? It's like we're shifting back to the 40's and 50's.

No one is clamoring for discriminatory practices. What is being questioned is whether the lack of freedom of association has had unintended consequences on society.