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

[redleghunter]

The farthest back I could find stats for (from the consensus) was 1948 and it was 69% Protestant and 22% Catholic. Since atheism, Judaism, and other non-Christian denominations have only grown in numbers over the years I think if we were at 91% Christian in 1948, that in the time of slavery Christianity was at least as prevalent. Plus slavery was defended using the Bible, and the confederacy referred to Christianity repeatedly. There is a preponderance of evidence that Christians were involved in the slave trade, owned slaves, and defended slavery to the point of saying that God ordained it. I’m just saying people on both sides of the issue were Christians.

A close examination of Matthew 13 and Matthew 22 shows the numbers are much less than claimed in surveys.

 

[redleghunter]

That sounds pretty far fetched to me. Are you serious? Are you aware of particular instances? I know a number of gay Christians, so why wouldn’t they want to attend a Christian college?

If there were gay Christians attending a Christian university then they would be celebate and not protesting wanting to have gay sex.

 

[redleghunter]

Can you just acknowledge that there is no actual difference in the physical cake? It’s a CAKE.

Well there is a difference. It’s designed to be a wedding cake.

If that be the case then why did not the couple instead go to the corner market and get a box of tastee cake cup cakes and call it good?

 

[redleghunter]

Wow I think this is the winning analogy.

It was an invalid analogy as consuming the object is not what was objected to but knowingly making it for a morally objectionable event.

 

[redleghunter]

Ew so he would have had to sit down with the disgusting sinners. So gross...

It’s not about the sinners but what they wanted to celebrate was morally objectionable according to the man who would design the cake.

I don’t know how many times it has been said but Phillips served gays every day in his shop.

 

[redleghunter]

But they apparently have to order from a more limited menu than straight customers.

See the post above the one I am responding to.

 

[Sparagmos]

Well there is a difference. It’s designed to be a wedding cake.

If that be the case then why did not the couple instead go to the corner market and get a box of tastee cake cup cakes and call it good?

I meant no actual difference in the gay cake and the straight cake. The cake. The physical object.

 

[Sparagmos]

It was an invalid analogy as consuming the object is not what was objected to but knowingly making it for a morally objectionable event.

It’s an analogy.

 

[redleghunter]

I meant no actual difference in the gay cake and the straight cake. The cake. The physical object.

You mean the physical object which represents a certain event in this case a wedding?

 

[redleghunter]

It’s an analogy.

There are valid analogies and invalid analogies.

Just as there are true and false premises.

Which if false everything follows is compounded as such.

 

[Sparagmos]

You mean the physical object which represents a certain event in this case a wedding?

 

[redleghunter]

Lol well that’s what happens when a premise is not properly established.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean the physical object which represents a certain event in this case a wedding?

A cake does not represent a wedding. Neither does a bouquet of flowers or an open bar or a DJ who plays the Hokey Pokey.

Equal access to products and services. That's what it's all about.

 

[redleghunter]

A cake does not represent a wedding. Neither does a bouquet of flowers or an open bar or a DJ who plays the Hokey Pokey.

Equal access to products and services. That's what it's all about.

A wedding cake is in fact for a wedding. It’s personally designed for a wedding.

For the religious conviction of JP there’s no equivalent to one man one woman marriage as taught and observed in his free exercise of religion.

I know you don’t care about these matters but there are actually people who strive to follow their faith. And in the US that’s actually in the First Amendment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well there is a difference. It’s designed to be a wedding cake.

No, that's not a difference. The original question was "All snarkiness aside, what is the difference between a wedding cake for a opposite gender wedding and a same gender wedding?"

They are both wedding cakes. What is the difference in the wedding cake? Is there some difference in its ingredients or preparation? Or is it some difference in the customer that inspires the discrimination?

 

[HannahT]

I meant no actual difference in the gay cake and the straight cake. The cake. The physical object.

If you only wish to look at the 'cake' no your right. Physical object and all that jazz. If you claim you believe in tolerance/diversity? Then you recognize the difference, and respect it. That shows the tolerance and diversity. There are plenty of bakers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I know you don’t care about these matters but there are actually people who strive to follow their faith. And in the US that’s actually in the First Amendment.

No one is attempting to change his mind, his holy book, his church, his prayers, his worship schedule, or anything in his private life. His public life as a dude who bakes cakes in exchange for money is subject to the rules of public life.

 

[redleghunter]

No one is attempting to change his mind, his holy book, his church, his prayers, his worship schedule, or anything in his private life. His public life as a dude who bakes cakes in exchange for money is subject to the rules of public life.

Yep that says it all. You think someone’s faith stays within the church doors. It’s a club or hobby for you. Guess what it is not.

 

[HannahT]

No, that's not a difference. The original question was "All snarkiness aside, what is the difference between a wedding cake for a opposite gender wedding and a same gender wedding?"

They are both wedding cakes. What is the difference in the wedding cake? Is there some difference in its ingredients or preparation? Or is it some difference in the customer that inspires the discrimination?

If you understand true diversity and tolerance? You wouldn't be asking about silly stuff like ingredients or preparation, but view the definitions of the word 'diversity' or 'tolerance'. It would instantly dawn on you 'inspiring the discrimination' would be those that can't grasp the true definition on these concepts in this circumstance. They are only looking to see animous - which should be frowned upon in the true reality of the definitions. Not that hard to wrap your mind around honestly.

It's the principal of thing, unless you are truly into legalistic thinking.

I mean that roots of those definitions mean accepting those that look at the world differently, and moving on. It would also include not adding to their actions with assumed beliefs that others might perceive. It's not that hard. The definition of tolerance is: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Those that can't grasp it? It's just buzzwords to use for their own reality. (shrugs) If you can't accept the existence of belief systems that you don't agree with? lol you can't claim you are FOR those things unless of course you also wish to own your own hypocrisy. I can't think of to many people that would LOVE to do that!

So, YES there is a difference. Really not that hard of a concept to wrap your mind around in reality.

 

[HannahT]

No one is attempting to change his mind, his holy book, his church, his prayers, his worship schedule, or anything in his private life. His public life as a dude who bakes cakes in exchange for money is subject to the rules of public life.

So, in others words - you can have your belief/faith systems on 'his' terms inside the church walls. lol yet your not allowed it in my 'tolerance' view to live it.

Yeah, it sound like your changing it. Your acceptance of diversity and tolerance isn't showing there. (Shrugs) You stand for tolerance, but not in the public square! You stand for diversity, but not in public square! That's not the true definition of it. Your want to live it part time, and others wish to do it full time. Your stand is therefore flawed. Your claim belief in diversity and tolerance but it's only part time, and have no tolerance for it full time. Claiming discrimination with those that disagree? Maybe owning our part time role would help people to understand where you're coming from. Claim the label - Part time diversity and tolerance otherwise I will assume the worse would be more accurate.