Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[PeaceByJesus]

Is the general public allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery? Yes. Are homosexuals allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery? No. So yes the general public was in fact offered a service that was not offered to homosexuals.

Actually homosexuals are allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery just as anyone else, unless either homosexuals or straights ask for the creation to be for the purpose of celebrating a so-called "homosexual marriage," or a divorce, etc.. And which for Phillips I am confident would also include polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage with demons, or btwn a man or women and an animal. It is the purpose that is the reason. An artist should be able to choose what he will make works for.

But unlike many liberal musicians who even claim the right to forbid persons from using their music in celebratory events they disagree with, once something is bought then i think the person should be free to use it as he wishes, unless unlawful. And in the Masterpiece case, the state (CO) did not even recognize the out-of-state wedding that the baker would have been complicit in celebrating, and the CO state constitution yet defined marriage as btwn male and female.

 

[Arcangl86]

Actually homosexuals are allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery just as anyone else, unless either homosexuals or straights ask for the creation to be for the purpose of celebrating a so-called "homosexual marriage," or a divorce, etc.. And which for Phillips I am confident would also include polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage with demons, or btwn a man or women and an animal. It is the purpose that is the reason. An artist should be able to choose what he will make works for.

But unlike many liberal musicians who even claim the right to forbid persons from using their music in celebratory events they disagree with, once something is bought then i think the person should be free to use it as he wishes, unless unlawful. And in the Masterpiece case, the state (CO) did not even recognize the out-of-state wedding that the baker would have been complicit in celebrating, and the CO state constitution yet defined marriage as btwn male and female.

Are you even listening to your self? This may come as a shock, but people buy wedding cakes to *gasp* celebrate their weddings. That's literally why you buy one. So if one class of people is allowed to buy a wedding cake for their understood purpose, and another group isn't then yes that group is not being offered the same service.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Are you even listening to your self? This may come as a shock, but people buy wedding cakes to *gasp* celebrate their weddings. That's literally why you buy one. So if one class of people is allowed to buy a wedding cake for their understood purpose, and another group isn't then yes that group is not being offered the same service.

It is you who is not "listening," or comprehending. The service of contracting to create a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral event was not available to any class. Straights could not contract for creations for celebrating immorality, including homosexual marriage.

The only way this was discrimination against a class is the the same way refusing to create works for the expressed purpose of celebrating weddings for a class of pedasterists, or practitioners of zoophilia, etc. would be.

This would be akin to a dress maker who refused to create a dress for an wedding that was immoral according to his sincere traditional moral beliefs.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Being attracted to the same sex is not a lifestyle. It’s how they were born.

This is an assertion with no evidence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I knew a young Christian man a few years ago who took his own life because of how vicious and cruel his evangelical Christian family and fellow church members treated him after he came out.

That should not be. No one should treat him badly (whatever you mean by that - some think anything less than enthusiastic approval is treating someone badly. Disagreement is not bad treatment).

We all battle some sort of sin that will trip us up. We need to help each other stand.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I did understand the question you asked. I can't help that you meant to ask something different.



Easily done. There are no gods. No gods were behind Hitler. But this doesn't mean all that much.

What does mean something is that the vast majority of Germans were Christian. The vast majority of the German army was Christian. The vast majority of German soldiers did not think their belt buckles referred to any other god than their own Christian one.

There are many people who claim they are Christian because they don't happen to be Jews or Muslims or Hindus (or some other group). They merely claim a label. There is a vast difference between claiming a label (or even being labeled by others from external factors) and being what you say you are.

Just because Grandma and Grandpa or Mom and Dad attended church does not make you a Christian.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

But the self identifying Christians were not?

Well, we were discussing WWII nazi-ism.
I think many Christian Germans were fooled into following it.

Many were afraid of the Nazis and would not stand up against them.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's not the problem. The problem (at least according to the argument made) is that the program asked prospective lawyers to sign a covenant that contradicted the oath that they would eventually take to practice law. Other arguments could be made. If it's anything like the US, admission to law school is very restrictive. Allowing that program would give extra opportunities to conservative Christians, and thus tend to bias the future members of the legal profession. But I think the real problem was that the covenant itself was seen as discriminatory.

The problem isn't Christianity, it's opposition to gays. You may not see the distinction but there is one. (Not to mention the fact that many Christians don't object to homosexuality, so it's not Christianity, but conservative Christianity.) Legally, there no problem with outlawing something done by members of a religion if there are secular reasons to object. Consider laws against animal sacrifice and female circumcision. Because both the US and Canada believe in religious freedom, such laws have to survive scrutiny as to how important the secular purpose is and whether there are ways to achieve the goal that doesn't affect the religion as much. But that scrutiny is weaker in Canada than in the US, and at least in Canada, it now appears that conservative Christian attempts to prevent others from doing something aren't given a high priority.

Biblical proscriptions against homosexual activity remain and are reasserted in the New Testament. If God wished to correct some misunderstanding in the Law that this activity actually was good and right, then we would have been told in His Word.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Perhaps because there's so much focus on it in the world.
An eye sore.
Holy matrimony vs unholy matrimony.
But they don't promote it or demand others to embrace it.

There is the key difference right there. With all other sins, we at least understand that it is still wrong. Having an affair? Lying? Stealing? Drug using/selling? Still wrong, and there is sympathy and help for those caught up in these, and for their families.

Homosexuality, by sharp contrast, is now promoted and approved sometimes even by those who claim the name of Christ. Those who stand on the Word of God are ridiculed and sometimes worse (and it will get worse).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

In the case of homosexuality, the behavior stems from who they are, how they were born, jyst as you were born heterosexual.

That's an assertion with zero biological evidence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?

Jesus didn't have to condemn homosexuality. He was sent to the Israelites, and homosexuality was already understood to be clearly proscribed and the behavior condemned in the law. Paul, on the other hand, was sent to gentiles, many of whom were practicing such things in the many temples of pagan gods. He needed to be more specific about these practices.

 

[Sparagmos]

That's an assertion with zero biological evidence.

What do the new ‘gay genes’ tell us about sexual orientation?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

...because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy many evangelicals engage in when it comes to which "sins" they want to fixate on. They want to make the sins that they, personally, object to more (and have an easier time abstaining from) be viewed as "the really bad ones", while the other ones only get a tepid objection (if any objection at all).



Which claim:
Indoctrinated to oppose? Nope, not at all, I assure you, my dislike for something that is absolutely gross to me, all came naturally. You're just making things up again because you'd like to think that's all there is too it.

...and then there was this from earlier on (which started it all off)
We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality
By your words, you're claiming that the defense of homosexuality would be on par with someone defending murder. I pointed out that's nonsense since one directly violates the rights of others (murder), while one's sexuality does not.

...that is, unless you're doing the old "imply then deny" routine?

This is simply your false and skewed assertion, based on nothing. Sin is sin. No one is giving a pass to other sins. This particular sin is one in which assent is DEMANDED and even legally enforced - unlike all the other sins - despite the contradiction with scripture, and that is the issue.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What do the new ‘gay genes’ tell us about sexual orientation?

False. This is the typical chicken and egg argument.

From the article: "No, says Sanders, because many other factors play a role, including the environment."

Because of engaging in an activity on a regular basis, there are changes. This is true in many areas, not just sexual behavior.

If you begin running marathons three times a week, there will be significant changes. These will occur because of what you did, not because you were born that way.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I think you're delving in and over-complicating the basic idea I'm trying to convey with regard to impact on others.

Sure everything has a slight impact in the regard of just cause & effect if you get granular enough. For instance, if I go into the store and buy a hot dog, and as the result of eating that hot dog, I got heartburn and said heartburn was the catalyst behind buying the last packages of Tums on the shelf, meaning...my purchase of the hot dog negatively impacted that other guy who was going to buy the Tums.

Obviously if we want to do "Nth degree of Kevin Bacon" logic, sure...

I'm simply talking about practical rights when I refer to negative impact.

When someone kills you, it directly negatively impacts you because you lost your life.
When someone steals from you, it directly negatively impacts you because you no longer have your stuff.

At best two guys holding hands might "weird you out", or the thought of two men together might make you think it's gross...but that's hardly on the same level as the other two things I mentioned above... If you want to consider "other people doing things that I find gross has a negative impact on me"...to the point where you want codification of the prohibition of those things, then you're opening up a serious can of worms.

But no one is objecting to the "two guys holding hands". You are arguing against a straw man here.

The objections have come into play where the two men try to legally compel others to do things, such as force a baker to make a cake for a wedding that cannot be a wedding in his faith (or even at all, under the law of the time).

When the state is compelling one to give up his own First Amendment rights is where the issue comes in, not just a couple of guys walking down the street.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Perhaps you can be clearer about what you mean. Most of these FORCED PC VIEW REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON OTHERS are things like "Someone walks into a cake shop and orders a cake and expects to receive a cake in exchange for money." Nobody wants to change anybody's views. They want a cake.

No, they didn't want a cake. They could purchase a cake off the shelf. Those guys wanted a custom artistic creation that celebrated a marriage that was not legal, and which is not a marriage in the faith of the baker. So he declined. They could have gone to 20 other shops to order a cake created for their event. But they chose to harass this guy because of his Christian faith, attempting compulsion by the state to force this guy to make a cake for an event that did not exist legally (at the time) and is not a wedding according to his faith.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Are you even listening to your self? This may come as a shock, but people buy wedding cakes to *gasp* celebrate their weddings. That's literally why you buy one. So if one class of people is allowed to buy a wedding cake for their understood purpose, and another group isn't then yes that group is not being offered the same service.

There was no such thing in Colorado at the time. Why should he be forced to create anything, much less to create a cake for an event which was nonexistent under the law (and his faith)?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But no one is objecting to the "two guys holding hands". You are arguing against a straw man here.

Actually a poster in this thread was suggesting that...or at least making the claim "as long as they do it out of sight in their own home...".

The objections have come into play where the two men try to legally compel others to do things, such as force a baker to make a cake for a wedding that cannot be a wedding in his faith (or even at all, under the law of the time).

When the state is compelling one to give up his own First Amendment rights is where the issue comes in, not just a couple of guys walking down the street.

Businesses aren't people...

At no point have I heard of the government telling an individual "you have to approve of this or else!". Everyone is still allowed to have their own stance on the matter and enforce whatever rules they like in their private residences.

However, when you get a business license, you're agreeing to play by a certain rule book. And in that book, includes a rule that prohibits certain forms of discrimination and service denial.

There's a lot of things I could do in my own house that I can't do as a business owner.

For instance, if I want to prepare food for a private gathering in my home without washing my hands, I could do so (that's just an example, I always wash my hands lol). However, if I opened a restaurant, and didn't wash my hands, that would cause some legal & health code issues. I could smoke a cigar in my home if I chose to...no-go in a business that serves the public.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is simply your false and skewed assertion, based on nothing. Sin is sin. No one is giving a pass to other sins.

Sure they are...they might not be endorsing it, but they're certainly taking lackadaisical position when it comes to protesting against certain ones when it comes to "I, as a business owner, don't want to do that because it promotes a lifestyle choice that's against what my book teaches".

Anytime I've seen those objections, it's always centered around one "sin", that being their objection to homosexuality.

I've never seen a store owner refuse to sell a lighter to smokers.
I've never heard of a baker refusing to sell pastries to gluttons (even though I'm positive that's an encounter they've had much more often then two dudes asking for a wedding cake...I've been in bakeries, I've seen what much of the clientele looks like)

When business owners want to "object" to things, it always seem to be the thing that meets two convenient criteria for them
A) It's a sin that they, personally, find it easy to abstain from
B) It's a sin that impacts a small enough portion of the population, that it won't particularly hurt their numbers at the end of the year.

If those same bakers took as staunch of a position on the doctrine relating to gluttony, and "harming the temple" and, in turn, refused to sell sweets to anyone over 250 pounds...let's see what their books would look like at the end of the fiscal year.

 

[Sparagmos]

False. This is the typical chicken and egg argument.

From the article: "No, says Sanders, because many other factors play a role, including the environment."

Because of engaging in an activity on a regular basis, there are changes. This is true in many areas, not just sexual behavior.

If you begin running marathons three times a week, there will be significant changes. These will occur because of what you did, not because you were born that way.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t discount the rest of the article and the expert concusions of the medical and scientific community. If you accept the one statement you quoted, do you accept the other conclusions in the article?