Poll Results: Americans Admit More Discomfort With LGBT

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Nor did Masterpiece sell custom wedding cakes to just anyone, and what i read, as cited, "he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties."

SilverBear said:

none of these are wedding cakes.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Which is that his refusal to sell the special cake (else he would recognize a wedding he considered not be a wedding, but a perversion of it) was based upon his convictions, as were his other refusals. Just as the refusal to make the cakes condemning homosexual relations was based upon convictions, and with both special cakes implying sanction. Or lack of compelling convictions, which what the state effectively favors here.

SilverBear said:

American slavery adhered fully to all biblical laws

Click to expand...

That is naked, ignorant absurdity. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
One difference was that,

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (Exodus 21:26-27)

And in jurisprudence (and Israel had a justice system and supreme court) this likely served as a principle for like injuries.

And,

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

In contrast, states like South Carolina and Georgia made it illegal to free a slave without the permission of the legislature, thus a slave owner couldn't free a slave even if he wanted to.

Also, all slaves were to rest on the seventh day and other Sabbaths, and from planting and sowing during the seventh year and the fiftieth year Jubilee. (Leviticus 25:1-13)

Unless you were a girl then your father could sell you into permanent slavery

Click to expand...

Unless she ran away, or the husband neglected her in providing for clothing, food and conjugal relations, or suffered severe injury from the owner. Slavery - A Storehouse of Knowledge

SilverBear said:

If it isn't a wedding then your Baker has nothing to object to.

Click to expand...

Superficial reasoning. Asking him to contract to create a cake for a wedding means recognizing it is a wedding, contrary to his convictions. You can call it that this late in the game, but it does not mean i must implicitly sanction it.

No, he is in court because he broke the law and refused services to a minority couple.

Click to expand...

Superficial reasoning, for it ignores the what is essentially behind the trial and what it means. Which is why there is a trial.

Belk said:

He was not asked to convey a message with his cake. He was asked to bake a confection. I am not asking Winchell's to approve of my job every time I bring doughnuts into the office.

Click to expand...

There's seems to be a misunderstanding. Philips was not just asked to bake a standard layered cake for a wedding. He was asked to make a wedding cake celebrating a gay union (as at the time same sex marriage was not legal in CO). The couple was married elsewhere and the cake was for their party celebrating the same sex marriage. Again Philips offered to bake or sell any cake not confirming a same sex marriage.

Belk said:

If the couple had asked for a cake design that contained a message specific to a homosexual marriage you would have a point and I would agree. As it is this was simply because the couple was gay.

Click to expand...

That's what they asked for. A cake designed to celebrate their homosexual union. They made that clear. They left before specifying how they would want to communicate such in detail.

Again he was asked to bake a cake for a specific event. Not just buy a general wedding cake.

SilverBear said:

Its not the first time the courts looked at equal protection verses religious "freedom"

Click to expand...

Which is more superficiality from you. The issue is not that of banning homosexuals from buying what anyone else can but, but contracting to create a special work for a special event not everyone can do obtain. Just as Jack would not create custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, as cited, he would not contracting to create a cake for straight people who wanted one to celebrate "gay marriage" or that of btwn a man and his goat.

• Was Masterpiece refusing to sell a cake anyone else could buy? No.
• Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/"discriminated" against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
• Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
• Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize "gay marriage" also that of the state at the time? Yes.
  
• Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of "gay marriage" by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
• Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
  
• Would the state punish a black or Jewish or Muslim baker for not creating a special cake for a KKK celebration, though they have the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.

SilverBear said:

and in 1960 there were no shortage of restaurants that woudl serve blacks.

Click to expand...

What does being black have to do being homosexual?

A black person walks in a shop there is no doubt they are black. A homosexual walks in a shop no one is the wiser unless told by the person.

Absolutely a false comparison.

SilverBear said:

none of these are wedding cakes.

Click to expand...

No but they are designed cakes none the less. Meaning he refused previously to make designed cakes for religiously objectionable events.

redleghunter said:

There's seems to be a misunderstanding. Philips was not just asked to bake a standard layered cake for a wedding. He was asked to make a wedding cake celebrating a gay union (as at the time same sex marriage was not legal in CO). The couple was married elsewhere and the cake was for their party celebrating the same sex marriage. Again Philips offered to bake or sell any cake not confirming a same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

That's a paradox. Philips is punished by the state for refusing to contract to create a cake for a wedding that was not not legally recognized by the state at that time.

Seems like the state should not punish Masterpiece not recognizing what it did not recognize, or to be consistent with its punishment of Masterpiece, then the state should be fining itself for sexual discrimination in proportion to how it fined Masterpiece.

SilverBear said:

American slavery adhered fully to all biblical laws

Click to expand...

Nope.

Were American slaves released after 7 years with a possession of their own? Not even close.

SilverBear said:

If it isn't a wedding then your Baker has nothing to object to.

No, he is in court because he broke the law and refused services to a minority couple.

Click to expand...

Gay marriage wasn't even law in CO at the time.

SilverBear said:

Chapter and verse?

Click to expand...

It actually resides in the reading comprehension of the text.

GoldenBoy89 said:

A system of ethics which requires no critical thought. Fantastic! Let's make everyone follow this line of thinking

Click to expand...

Critical thought is designed to test the machinations of humankind. However, given your statement it would be futile to point out moral absolutes.

PeaceByJesus said:

That is naked, ignorant absurdity. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
One difference was that,

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (Exodus 21:26-27)

And in jurisprudence (and Israel had a justice system and supreme court) this likely served as a principle for like injuries.

And,

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

In contrast, states like South Carolina and Georgia made it illegal to free a slave without the permission of the legislature, thus a slave owner couldn't free a slave even if he wanted to.

Also, all slaves were to rest on the seventh day and other Sabbaths, and from planting and sowing during the seventh year and the fiftieth year Jubilee. (Leviticus 25:1-13)

Unless she ran away, or the husband neglected her in providing for clothing, food and conjugal relations, or suffered severe injury from the owner. Slavery - A Storehouse of Knowledge

Click to expand...

What's interesting is a foreigner both sojourner and man servants could celebrate the passover but must be circumcised. Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant. Exodus 12:43-49

PeaceByJesus said:

Nor are wedding cakes for anything one calls a wedding. The state can call ham "turkey" but that does not make it to be so.

Click to expand...

I've got no idea what you're trying to say here...the guy sells custom wedding cakes. The issue isn't whether or not he believes that the couple are indeed having what he calls a wedding...the issue is that they wanted to buy a wedding cake and he refused.

How they think does not make it true. Anyone who imagines what you do is not a form of speech, expressing what you believe is likely trying to excuse there own hypocrisy. Phillips is thus being tried because of his belief that what one does reflects what they believe. And while the charge is sexual discrimination, he would have refused a straight couple who wanted him to create a work in celebration of homosexual "marriage" (newly altered), thus the charge is indirect discrimination.

Click to expand...

No...it's no different from a florist selling flowers or a hairdresser cutting hair. He has no right to discriminate.

GoldenBoy89 said:

This is adorable. Truly, I thought more highly of you, Rion than to believe this changing tide nonsense.

If you think you are building some kind of 'movement' on Trump you will be sorely disappointed in a few years when he's gone, the establishment and media are still here and Washington finally goes back to "normal".

Click to expand...

I am not building anything on Trump, and I am not talking about "the tide changing." I am simply OBSERVING that the pendulum is swinging back in the opposite direction, and that this was inevitably going to happen. I HAVE repeatedly stated that the left really needed to stop trying to be authoritarian in forcing their own views on others, but that doesn't make me a Trump fan.

PeaceByJesus said:

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Nor did Masterpiece sell custom wedding cakes to just anyone, and what i read, as cited, "he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties."

You are missing the point. Which is that his refusal to sell the special cake (else he would recognize a wedding he considered not be a wedding, but a perversion of it) was based upon his convictions, as were his other refusals. Just as the refusal to make the cakes condemning homosexual relations was based upon convictions, and with both special cakes implying sanction. Or lack of compelling convictions, which what the state effectively favors here.

Click to expand...

The fact that none of these are wedding cakes is exactly the point. He doesn't make this list of cakes for anyone. However he does make wedding cakes for everyone except same sex couples. And that is discrimination

redleghunter said:

A same sex wedding cake. Philips does not design cakes for such events based on his free exercise of religion.

Click to expand...

Which one of these is the same sex wedding cake?

Can you tell?

GoldenBoy89 said:

A system of ethics which requires no critical thought. Fantastic! Let's make everyone follow this line of thinking

Click to expand...

it actually takes quite a bit of thought and twisting of logic to get the rules to apply only to the people you want it to apply to

PeaceByJesus said:

Nor did Masterpiece sell custom wedding cakes to just anyone, and what i read, as cited, "he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties."

Click to expand...

Weird you'd make a claim about wedding cakes and then immediately retreat to talking about unrelated products.

But it is true - he wouldn't sell wedding cakes to everyone. Just straight customers.

And note that Jack Phillips was not refusing to serve the homosexual couple because they were so, but because of what cake he was asked to create was for.He would have refuse a straight person asking for the same.

Click to expand...

That's not true. He sells wedding cakes to straight customers all the time.

Or is this where we're supposed to pretend a gay wedding cake is different from a straight one, and then we post a bunch of pictures and no one can tell which is which without knowing the orientation of the customer

The difference is that the state has effectively ordained that if you are going to sell sandwiches, then you must sell ham ones as well.

Click to expand...

Not at all. It has simply said that you can't get around anti-discrimination laws by saying you believe you're so special that they don't apply to you.