Bakers hit with $135k ruling...Go Fund Me shuts down fundraiser for them...

[MishSill]

Where is the evidence for that? The U.S. is clearly not due to the Article Six and the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Historically,

American and Australian Laws derived from UK.

UK derived from Rome.

Rome tolerated Judaism.

 

[Armoured]

Historically,

American and Australian Laws derived from UK.

UK derived from Rome.

Rome tolerated Judaism.

UK derived from Rome? According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, maybe...

 

[MishSill]

Good for you. What's your point?

My identity is not solely based on my sexuality.

I think the point is when a person needs to feel accepted, they feel a need to promote what they are rather than who they are.

It is in the end Jesus who heals people from all their sinful nature.

No therapy in the whole world is going to get a person out of sin and I'm not just referring to a particular one. Its the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit that does that.

 

[MishSill]

UK derived from Rome? According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, maybe...

Um...have you forgotten King Henry VIII being the most obvious person who broke with the Roman Catholic Church from which its laws were derived?

 

[Armoured]

My identity is not solely based on my sexuality.

I think the point is when a person needs to feel accepted, they feel a need to promote what they are rather than who they are.

It is in the end Jesus who heals people from all their sinful nature.

No therapy in the whole world is going to get a person out of sin and I'm not just referring to a particular one. Its the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit that does that.

I don't think many homosexuals would claim their identity is based solely on their sexuality either.

 

[Armoured]

Um...have you forgotten King Henry VIII being the most obvious person who broke with the Roman Catholic Church from which its laws were derived?

Um, the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with Roman law

 

[Paulos23]

On what moral grounds were they segregated? I'm not familiar with the history. I always understood it was because of their race.

Some people thought they where just animals and we where helping them with slavery, others used the Bible to justify slavery and to separate blacks from whites. The reason they used was that they where being punished for Cain's sins. They didn't want that sin transferred to themselves.

Complete nonsense, but that is some of what they thought at the time.

I totally understand the legal concept.

Discrimination works both ways.

Giving one person rights can very much take away others rights as you will see when life progresses, now that your law has been instilled.

Yes it does go both ways, but it depends on where you draw the line. Where I think you want to draw the line would let everyone do anything they want if it was part of their religion. The problem with that is when it includes harming others or trampling their rights. Letting the baker not sell the cake sets up a dangerous precedent where you could end up with all the best bakeries refusing to serve a homosexual couple, just like when blacks could go into the best restraints or buy good clothes or have to drink from the hose instead of the water fountain (to use a real live example from the South).

You may see this as trampling on your rights, but we in America have had this happen before and it is better to require a business to sell a service they provide to the public to everyone then to let them be picky. If they want to be picky they can become a private club and sell memberships. So legally there is a way forward for the bakers (and it looks like they are doing that) but then they can't hid under the guise of being open to the public.

As I have said before, it sets a dangerous precedent for everyone's freedoms.

It is not as bad as you think. This is drawing the line in the middle so that everyone get some freedom. Sorry you feel that it is not in Christianity's favor.

 

[Paulos23]

Historically,

American and Australian Laws derived from UK.

UK derived from Rome.

Rome tolerated Judaism.

If you are talking about common law, not that much of it came from Rome. Some from the Bible, but that has fallen away over time.

If you are talking about civil law, the framework is Roman, but not much of the original Roman law remands.

Neither is based 100% on the Bible. Nor is the Bible's laws codified in U.S. law as Biblical laws. And the ones that have been have been struck down as Unconstitutional.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the key words as spoken by another lady here is aiding and abetting. Making a birthday cake for anyone doesn't aid and abet their lifestyle, baking a themed wedding cake on the other hand is.

If this is the case, it would also be aiding and abetting, if a baker sold a wedding cake to a couple that is divorced and are remarrying and will be living a life of adultery. We don't hear much about that sin though, why is that?

 

[bhsmte]

My identity as a Christian is important to me. Being a heterosexual is only one aspect of that.

Would this mean that homosexuals can not be Christian?

 

[Maren]

I can see why Gofundme shut down their account. It was a clear violation of Gofundme's rules. That being said the fine was outrageous. It was #@$@#@#ing cake for a wedding. Yes, they deserved to be fined, but a fine of 1/100th the amount would have been much more reasonable. The bakers would have got the message and would still be in business. They would not to make that sort of mistake again. The problem with the fine put on them is that it is high enough to put them out of business. Now we have a broke couple that society has to take care of. Punishments should both fit the crime and allow the wrong doer to see the error of his ways and change them in he future. This punishment does not allow the latter. It feels more like revenge than justice to me.

You need to read more posts. It has been explained here multiple times that there was no monetary penalty for refusing to bake the cake. Instead, the monetary ruling was for harassment, largely because the bakers posted the names and address of the couple that complained on a publicly visible Facebook page and by frequently talking to the press about the case, which led to many people harassing the the couple, with some even making death threats.

Additionally, the couple that owns the bakery has brought in over $300,000 in donations -- far more than the fine they were required to pay. I assume those donations were taken into account when the ruling was made.

 

[bhsmte]

I recall that remarriage could only occur where the other partner committed adultery against the one who ends up remarrying. Also Christians are bound in marriage to Non-Christians and the Christian is only free if the Non-Christian chooses to leave them.



This actually raises a good point here.
Unless we actually know what is going on, how can we act on it.
The baker simply acted out of knowing what was going on.
There is no way for a baker or anyone else for that matter to know what is really going on.
They could be baking a cake for a couple that are really swingers or a couple who, under the Bible don't qualify for remarriage.

In regard to the witchypoo stuff...I would say that God is against the practice of witchcraft rather than the funny images of witches which don't actually exist in real life.

Would this mean, it is ok to aid the sins of others, as long as the baker doesn't know about it?

 

[DaisyDay]

...baking a themed wedding cake...

What theme? "Wedding" was the "theme" discussed. The baker refused to sell them any wedding cake whatsoever.

 

[Maren]

In Australia, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, disability, race and sex. We have Commonwealth and State law here....Commonwealth is the prevailing authority.

Australia signed up into the United Nations Treaty of Human Rights where antidiscrimination is derived.

So therefore even if State law provided some reprieve for employers, a person could take the matter up with the Federal Court and sue under antidiscrimination legislation which is the prevailing law. As this is the overarching principle here, we would end up with non-stop cases along similar lines to the baker.

How does America deal with its separate states? Does it also have similar principles.

It sounds like it is similar, in terms of state and federal; if a state law is found to conflict with federal law or the Constitution the courts will invalidate the law or the conflicting portions of the law. As for discrimination, the US Civil Rights Act protects Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Sex, Familial Status, and Disability. Additionally, Age, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Disability, and Veterans are protected by other non-discrimination laws.

A few states and several larger cities have added Sexual Orientation in their Civil Rights laws. The Religious Accommodation law I mentioned is a federal law.

You probably noticed above, the antidiscrimination law under the United Nations Treaty do not cover religion only race. So your laws are a bit more accomodating. I can't honestly say that I'm familiar with employment law here as I've not studied it.

I remembered reading this in the media's account of the case. I think it is a fair rule under the circumstances and requires some forward thinking on the part of the baker so they don't discriminate in the future.

Our equivalent are incorporated associations (sporting clubs and community organisations)... these are however "not for profit" organisations, even though they can acquire land, sue and be sued etc. A gym over here that makes a profit would be registered as a trading company.

We don't have private companies as you do.

As I'm guessing you know, we also have non-profit groups, just that a private company here can be for profit or non-profit. This is one of the areas where state laws vary widely -- most of these types of business laws are legislated at the state level. In fact, many large US corporations are incorporated in the small state of Delaware, regardless of where the company actually has their main offices, because they have favorable business laws.

I'm curious to know if Amercia had also signed the Treaty? and if so, do you have similar principles where it in fact might be an over arching principle to all other existing law. I wonder if it has ever been tested against the legislation that allows private companies ?

The US has signed the treaty and, after some of the recent racial issues in the US, apparently the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has issued a report stating the US is in violation of their obligations under the treaty.

 

[Aldebaran]

If this is the case, it would also be aiding and abetting, if a baker sold a wedding cake to a couple that is divorced and are remarrying and will be living a life of adultery. We don't hear much about that sin though, why is that?

If someone started a thread about it, then it would be discussed. Otherwise, it's off-topic. That's why we're not hearing about it.

 

[bhsmte]

If someone started a thread about it, then it would be discussed. Otherwise, it's off-topic. That's why we're not hearing about it.

This thread discussed supporting sinful behavior, according to some, so it fits.

 

[Aldebaran]

This thread discussed supporting sinful behavior, according to some, so it fits.

Hmmm. According the title, it seems to have more to do with a baker being fined for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple for a "wedding" reception.

 

[OliviaMay]

Hmmm. According the title, it seems to have more to do with a baker being fined for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple for a "wedding" reception.

The fine was for harassment and threats. Not the cake.

 

[bhsmte]

Hmmm. According the title, it seems to have more to do with a baker being fined for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple for a "wedding" reception.

Sure and many christians have mentioned it wasn't about being gay, it was about supporting what they deemed was "sinful".

Therefore, a discussion about what is considered sinful, is appropriate.

 

[MishSill]

I don't think many homosexuals would claim their identity is based solely on their sexuality either.

I think the madi gras and rainbow parades pretty much speak for themselves.

Maybe we should have the equivalent heterosexual parades.