Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

[bhsmte]

Which as showed, was allowed since it was not to celebrate any claimed actual marriage, and but was like marrying Ken and Barbie (and the dogs were not both male i am confident), and was not that of affirming a claim to an actual marriage. Whether you can see the difference or (most likely) not that the baker did is irrelevant.

What do you think should be done with the homosexuals in this world?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How many straight couples were refused service because of their orientation?

As you were shown, straight persons were denied service based on the purpose of the goods were for, yet you are back here making the same refuted arguments as you habitually did on the last thread, and thus as there, do not be surprised when your refuted assertions are ignored. Or exposed again.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's why my church doesn't consider marriage a sacrament. It's a civil institution that the Church chooses to bless. There's no special magic happening in a church at a wedding, and certainly none in a wedding cake. If there's any idolatry happening here, it's among the folks that insist that a wedding cake has some kind of inherent religious significance.

Dude, a wedding cake is a big part of a celebration, and as such it is an affirmation, and whether or not you celebrate the 10th divorce and remarriage of a person or stealing a car, by taking part in the celebration then you are affirming it. As does taking part in the Lord's supper.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No one is even being asked to participate in a ceremony, much less forced. They're just being asked to sell a cake.

And you were told again that They were not just being asked to sell a cake, but to contract to create a cake for the specific purpose of celebrating an unlawful (in the eyes of the God the baker believes in, as well as the state at the time) event, a redefinition of marriage.

This should not have to be repeated, except you refuse to see it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which as showed, was allowed since it was not to celebrate any claimed actual marriage

I thought the argument was that there wasn't any actual gay marriage in CO at the time, either.

 

[KCfromNC]

And you were told again that They were not just being asked to sell a cake

Yeah, I've been told lots of things. No reason for me to believe those things are real, of course, but I've certainly been told.

 

[KCfromNC]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
The Masterpiece case offense is from 2012 in CO:

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts ​

As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of

Ignorant? Or I just understand that it is irrelevant to the claim that the marriage was unlawful.

 

[KCfromNC]

The second

And the third : Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it. Might want to get the facts straight before trying to lecture people on getting things wrong.

For an apartment is not specifically, expressly for a uniquely non-Christian lifestyle

You might think that, but if a landlord did would that be a good enough excuse not to rent to them?

Likewise helping a homosexual to be well, or changing his flat tire (which i want to do) may help him in some degree to a live non-Christian lifestyle, but it is not specifically and only for that purpose, but can help them in many valid ways.

You might think so. Other Christians disagree. That's the danger of allowing "but I really believe, like for real" as an excuse for businesses to discriminate against minorities.

 

[KCfromNC]

straight persons were denied service based on the purpose of the goods were for

Yes, but not because of their orientation so I have no idea why you continue to repeat that as if it means anything to these cases.

 

[Grandpa2390]

You needs to be better informed. How much of the thread did you read before making your comment?

Is there a problem with what I said? Come on now, be specific.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Did the Christian bakery advertise that they didn't serve gay customers? If not, this reads a lot like victim blaming.

After 19 years the Masterpiece bakery had a reputation, and I think they were know to be a Christian-owed business, which befits their name, Master-piece in Christian speak. And as such they could expect to be targeted.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dude, a wedding cake is a big part of a celebration, and as such it is an affirmation, and whether or not you celebrate the 10th divorce and remarriage of a person or stealing a car, by taking part in the celebration then you are affirming it. As does taking part in the Lord's supper.

If I bake a birthday cake to sell to somebody I know is a jerk, is that an affirmation of their jerkiness, or just me doing my job?

 

[KCfromNC]

After 19 years the Masterpiece bakery had a reputation, and I think they were know to be a Christian-owed business, which befits their name, Master-piece in Christian speak. And as such they could expect to be targeted.

Reads to me like there was no indication that they advertised to be a straight-only business and no evidence that they were specifically targeted.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Is there a problem with what I said? Come on now, be specific.

Well yes there is a problem. You stated "You deny homosexuals because you are a Christian. What about the adulterers and the fornicators, etc. you can't claim you are doing something based on religious belief if you are inconsistent about it."

Yet if you had read more you should have known the the baker also had refused to create other works based upon the purpose for them, this as i had asked

• 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).​

And as often stated here, this was not a case of refusing someone who is a immoral person, but because of being asked to knowingly contract to create a work for a special purpose, celebrating an unlawful union, which would have made the baker an accomplice.

Of course, some of the posters here just came off a over 1200 post thread in which your objections and others were already dealt yet with keep getting reincarnated, so pardon my exasperation.

 

[KCfromNC]

• 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).​

Snipped all the hand-wringing.

Again, you're confusing being discriminated against because of orientation (i.e. not being sold a product straight people can buy) with not being able to buy a product the baker doesn't make for anyone. It isn't discrimination to go into a coffee shop and not be sold an airline ticket.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I thought the argument was that there wasn't any actual gay marriage in CO at the time, either.

There wasn't and the cute doggie wedding was a make-believe one, versus a make-believe one being celebrated under the premise that it was valid and legal. Note: though the Bible does not forbid animal unions, married is only defined as btwn opposite-gender humans.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
The Masterpiece case offense is from 2012 in CO:

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts ​

As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of
C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado.

Ignorant? Or I just understand that it is irrelevant to the claim that the marriage was unlawful.

How could be irrelevant to the claim that the marriage was unlawful? The cake was for the celebration of the wedding which was illegal no matter where it took place. Why can you not see this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which is not unlimited, and depends upon interpretation with other rights being considered,

No right is absolute; that's a given

otherwise any immoral persons (felons) can vote,

Whoa there -- are you saying that all criminals are immoral people? Don't confuse legality with morality... There's a Dr. King who, among numerous others, would love to set you straight about that.

the boy scouts must allow homosexual leaders, and organizations must allow any type of group in its events,

Neither the United States Government nor any organization it sponsors, endorses, or otherwise provides material support to (read: $$$) is allowed to discriminate in its membership... and make no mistake, when the president of the United States is the honorary leader of your organization, and the government routinely rents out public land to you for your events for free or a nominal ($1) fee, you are most certainly endorsed and supported by it.

artists must create whatever is asked for them, for whatever purpose...

Seems to me that the "I'm not a baker, I'm an artiste" argument was already tried in this case... and rejected.

 

[bhsmte]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
The Masterpiece case offense is from 2012 in CO:

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts ​

As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of
C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado.

How could be irrelevant to the claim that the marriage was unlawful? The cake was for the celebration of the wedding which was illegal no matter where it took place. Why can you not see this?

Can you answer post #303

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What do you think should be done with the homosexuals in this world?

The same thing atheists would do with us if a consensual Christian activity such as taking part in the Lord's supper resulted in over 80% of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older? After almost 40 years of trying to tame it and over 600,000 deaths mainly caused by the practice?

I think not, but at the least stop the sanitizing indoctrination of homosexual relations as well as fornication in general, as if you are a victim for what you chose to engage in, and cease the tactics described before used to intimidate all who conscientiously oppose homosexual relations, and compelling them to sanction it.