If you missed it: More than 50% of Americans now live in states where SSM is legal.

[Vylo]

The fact some homosexuals consider themselves to be Christian, doesn't change the fact that according to the religion they claim to be a part of, homosexual behavior is considered sinful.

That is actually highly debatable.

However, this is over the baking of a cake to be used for a specific event that celebrates and "legitimizes" a behavior that the baker considers to be sinful due to his religion. So by not finding fault with how the baker was treated, you are essentially saying that African American bakers should be forced to bake cakes for KKK induction ceremonies.

No I'm not, African American is not a religion, that's apples and oranges.

Okay back up a second, is Atheism a religion or isn't it, cause I've heard people try to have it both ways.

It isn't really a religion, but it is has a religious viewpoint.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then I guess African American bakers can be forced to bake cakes for KKK induction ceremonies...

Yeah, I'm sure the KKK is going to source its baked goods from African American bakers. Oh, Garfield...

 

[Armoured]

For the record, if the KKK wants to hire a black baker to perform a service that he usually, willingly provides for other clients, I see nothing wrong with him being legally required to do so. Anti-discrimination is a two way street.

 

[GarfieldJL]

That is actually highly debatable.

I know people on the left would like to rewrite the Holy Bible to make it fit with their worldview, but that isn't practicing Christianity, that's an attempt to corrupt it and saying you know better than God...

No I'm not, African American is not a religion, that's apples and oranges.

You're trying to have it both ways Vylo.

Either African American bakers have to bake cakes for KKK despite how blacks were treated in the past AND Christian Bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay wedding in violation of their religious beliefs; OR BOTH African American bakers and Christian bakers can refuse to do so.

Those are the only options, I will not let weasel out of this by saying one group of people get special rights cause they are of one group, but another group doesn't get the same rights, simply cause you don't agree with their viewpoint on an issue.

It isn't really a religion, but it is has a religious viewpoint.

If it isn't a religion, then quite frankly your argument has no validity. Does the atheist in question simply hate Christians? What is his/her objection to marriage?

--------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm sure the KKK is going to source its baked goods from African American bakers. Oh, Garfield...

Why not, if the baker tries to poison things then the baker would be facing potential charges...

-----------------------------------------------

For the record, if the KKK wants to hire a black baker to perform a service that he usually, willingly provides for other clients, I see nothing wrong with him being legally required to do so. Anti-discrimination is a two way street.

Well I'll say this for you, you're taking a stance that isn't hypocritical.

 

[Vylo]

I know people on the left would like to rewrite the Holy Bible to make it fit with their worldview, but that isn't practicing Christianity, that's an attempt to corrupt it and saying you know better than God...

Yeah, but that isn't what is happening. Unless you can show my Jesus saying something about homosexuality being bad.

You're trying to have it both ways Vylo.

Actually I'm saying the 2 aren't comparable, because they aren't. One is a matter of religious belief, the other is not.

If it isn't a religion, then quite frankly your argument has no validity. Does the atheist in question simply hate Christians? What is his/her objection to marriage?

It isn't a religion by the sociological definition because that would require a belief in the supernatural. By most legal definitions it is because it takes a stance on the supernatural.

Our objection to a Christian marriage can be that it supports religion which we find to be a damaging element to society that runs counter to our beliefs.

 

[Vylo]

Also Garfield, the issue in your example was already settled. The baker was forced to serve the KKK, although they tried citing religious beliefs.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah, but that isn't what is happening. Unless you can show my Jesus saying something about homosexuality being bad.

Try the Old Testament:
The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've actually looked into this and arguments on this topic, I've seen people try to argue both sides of this issue.

Actually I'm saying the 2 aren't comparable, because they aren't. One is a matter of religious belief, the other is not.

So you're now essentially saying that an African American Baker must bake a cake for a KKK induction ceremony, cause they don't even have a religious argument (or any other legit argument) as to why they reject it, but hatred...

Vylo you can't have this both ways, and by your own admission the Christian Baker actually had the stronger case.

It isn't a religion by the sociological definition because that would require a belief in the supernatural. By most legal definitions it is because it takes a stance on the supernatural.

So you're saying Atheism is a religion then?

Our objection to a Christian marriage can be that it supports religion which we find to be a damaging element to society that runs counter to our beliefs.

I thought that would be the explanation you'd use, as a matter of fact, I was counting on it.

Based on the account of the reasoning you provided, the Atheist Baker wouldn't have grounds to legitimately refuse to bake the cake. Seriously, he refuses to bake a cake out of animousity towards Christianity?!?! Your hypothetical Atheist essentially said he wasn't going to bake a cake due to someone's religious faith... Your explanation leads me to believe he would actually say that he doesn't want Christians to shop there at all.

Unlike the Atheist baker, the reason why the Christian Baker would have valid grounds to object to baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, has to do with the fact that it would be providing support to something that legitimizes and celebrates a behavior that is considered sinful according to his religious beliefs.

This doesn't mean a Christian Baker can just refuse to do business with people simply cause they are gay, all I'm saying is that on the one issue, where we're clearly seeing a run-in with the baker's religious convictions, that people should respect his beliefs instead of trying to force him to choose between his faith and his business staying open.

-------------------------------------------

Also Garfield, the issue in your example was already settled. The baker was forced to serve the KKK, although they tried citing religious beliefs.

That's what Armoured said, I actually didn't give my position on the example. I was pointing out what you were basically arguing.

My stance is actually that the African American Baker has a right to object, he couldn't argue the religious point, but the 1st Amendment also includes the protection of one's political speech. A KKK induction ceremony is arguably a political event.

Just like the Christian Baker should have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, due to religious beliefs.

Both situations are classic 1st Amendment issues (not to mention you could argue in both cases that this is an attempt to harass both bakers).

 

[Vylo]

I've actually looked into this and arguments on this topic, I've seen people try to argue both sides of this issue.

Jesus isn't in the old testament.

So you're saying Atheism is a religion then?

Legally yes

Based on the account of the reasoning you provided, the Atheist Baker wouldn't have grounds to legitimately refuse to bake the cake. Seriously, he refuses to bake a cake out of animousity towards Christianity?!?! Your hypothetical Atheist essentially said he wasn't going to bake a cake due to someone's religious faith... Your explanation leads me to believe he would actually say that he doesn't want Christians to shop there at all.

No different than a Christian refuses to bake a cake out of their animosity towards homosexuality.

Unlike the Atheist baker, the reason why the Christian Baker would have valid grounds to object to baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, has to do with the fact that it would be providing support to something that legitimizes and celebrates a behavior that is considered sinful according to his religious beliefs.

And providing support to a Christian wedding supports and celebrates a behavior that is considered harmful by many atheists. Still gotta bake the cake .

 

[HonestTruth]

The Constitution's full faith and credit provision allows contracts to be enforceable just about anywhere and SSM is within its protection.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm sure next we're going to be dealing with people being persecuted based on their religious beliefs...

The courts deal with crybabies and frivolous lawsuits all the time -- nothing new under the sun.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have the perfect secular reason against it: the 14th Amendment. If there is no secular reason that would be in the government's interest (in fact I could see why they would have reason not to want it (primarily taxes)), then they are elevating one group of citizens above everyone else and giving them special status. Equal Protection under the law remember.

And who is getting special status? Men, or women?

The courts are not God, the courts can get things wrong, the Dredd Scott case is a perfect example.

And the remedy for a court's mistaken decision is another court's decision. Even SCOTUS can change its mind as time goes on.

 

[Brigid48]

Except for Christian Bakers and Photographers with strong religious beliefs...

Enforcement of nondescrimination laws and requiring people who serve the public to, you know, serve the public, is not "persecution", my dear.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Enforcement of nondescrimination laws and requiring people who serve the public to, you know, serve the public, is not "persecution", my dear.

Besides which, outlawing SSM in order to prevent this from happening is not the solution -- it's more like outlawing automobiles in order to enforce the 55 MPH speed limit.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you for providing an example Armoured, as to why people that disagree with pro-gay marriage supporters, have every reason not to respect pro-gay marriage supporters. If your side can't at least respect those that disagree with you, then my side is more than justified in having 0 respect for your side.

And it's just so adorable that you think that matters in some way!

PROTIP: While it would certainly be nice if people respected one another here in America, it's a courtesy, not a requirement -- respecting the law, however, is a requirement.

 

[Vylo]

Add Alaska to the list and now 58.7% of America. 29 states.

 

[OlduvaiGeorge]

Add Alaska to the list and now 58.7% of America. 29 states.

Considering that the entire population of Alaska is less than the city in which I currently live this adds just a fraction to the total. I had a feeling something like this was going to happen; the Supreme Court will just let the states go one by one do they don't have to bother.

 

[AceHero]

So many rulings being pushed through and stays being lifted has resulted in a flurry of states becoming SSM legal.

As of now 28 of the 50 states, and 58.5% of the population are areas were SSM is legal. I think this exceeds my predictions, though time will tell if we will see 100% before 2022 ( I think I predicted 10 years in 2012).

There are currently 6 more states with stayed rulings, which if they also change over will make it 79% of the population.

It's good to see this conflict finally coming to an end, but I'm sure some will go kicking and screaming.

It's absolutely unbelievable how fast things are progressing. Like you, I was thinking gay marriage would be universal in all 50 states within 10 years.

As for me, I'm a Christian and I haven't been discriminated against by the gays. Perhaps the whole thing is overstated...or am I doing something wrong?

 

[TLK Valentine]

As for me, I'm a Christian and I haven't been discriminated against by the gays. Perhaps the whole thing is overstated...or am I doing something wrong?

Clearly you don't own a bakery.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Considering that the entire population of Alaska is less than the city in which I currently live this adds just a fraction to the total. I had a feeling something like this was going to happen; the Supreme Court will just let the states go one by one do they don't have to bother.

We're not going by population, we're counting states -- remember, people like Cruz need 3/4 of them for their Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM... the more states realize that the sky is not going to fall, the more futile his quest becomes.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

 

[OlduvaiGeorge]

We're not going by population, we're counting states -- remember, people like Cruz need 3/4 of them for their Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM... the more states realize that the sky is not going to fall, the more futile his quest becomes.

It never had a chance anyway. They couldn't muster enough support to pass it in 2004 when gay marriage was the signature issue. Only a cynical politician trying to cobble together a loose association of fanatics to fund-raise would come up with that one.