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
Emphasis mine.
Upvote
0
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
It can be debated whether marriage is sacramental, or whether a wedding should be civil or religious. Marriage and sex have religious significance and either one (or both) can be abused on religious grounds. Noting these abuses and avoiding them isn't idolatrous.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.
Many gay people--not all by a long shot, but many--do not see diversity as a gift. These people, even if they were deeply offended, could not just leave it alone, see.
How many straight couples were refused service because of their orientation?For I don't know how many times. This case is not about denying orders because black or gay.
Rather, you miss the fact that the picture served to refute the assertion that its "just a cake," and that a cake for a straight wedding and a cake for a gay wedding for "all intents and purposes" are identical. That the cake I showed actually had lesbian couple on it actually further served to substantiate my argument. And that the baker should have a right what he writes out a check for.Pretty sure it was because despite the claims of cakes sending obvious, clear, unmistakable messages about the beliefs of the baker, they somehow missed the message that one of the cakes in your link is for a gay wedding. Weird how this alleged straightforward endorsement of immorality by a baker escaped someone who was specifically telling us how important it was. Almost as if the reality of the situation doesn't line up with the propaganda coming from people who want to give businesses a blank check to refuse service to certain groups.
What are you calling comprehensive care? Birth control and performing abortions?
No one is even being asked to participate in a ceremony, much less forced. They're just being asked to sell a cake.Perhaps base dignity should include not forcing people to participate in a ceremony which violates their religious conscience.
Rather, you miss the fact that the picture served to refute the assertion that its "just a cake," and that a cake for a straight wedding and a cake for a gay wedding for "all intents and purposes" are identical.
So homosexuals picking a Christian bakery out of about a dozen in its 5 mile radius
It is almost as if whole "but it is a gay cake" thing isn't the real reason far-right business owners don't want to serve gay people.all you were doing is promoting the fact you can't identify a "cake created for homosexuals" when you see one
Don't have to rent apartments to non-Christians because one would be endorsing a non-Christian lifestyle. Don't sell food to a married gay couple for the same reason. Refuse to treat the child of a gay couple because of their "lifestyle choices".
Guess which of these have actually happened so far?
Says who? creating and selling a cake is not just selling a cake when you know it is to be specifically used to do something unlawful. Celebrating an unlawful sexual union is sin
It doesn't seem other "sin groups" are dragging bakers into court.
Then you should join the various groups which want sugar taxes and closings of shops which sell unhealthy foods.
I thought at one point you were a libertarian? To each his own. What changed?
Yep. Wouldn't want to risk selling a gay couple a car or rent a mixed-religion couple an apartment, lest we facilitate their commitment to each other.Perhaps to facilitate and to assist with the celebration of two people's commitment in a homosexual relationship is a better way to put it.
it was for a party ...are parties held by gay people suddnly now illegal?
Well, when responding to a scenario specifically about selling gas...do you read your own posts?
I don't remember responding to your 'whites, blacks only' post at all.So can you explain (in a way that makes sense) why in your opinion why it's OK to post a sign advertising a business choice to not serve women but you blanch at the idea of a business posting a sign advertising its choice to not serve blacks?
The second, but which still leaves you with no argument, for that is not the same as the other two. For an apartment is not specifically, expressly for a uniquely non-Christian lifestyle, in fact most therein would be common practices. To be analogous the landlord would be refusing to rent a function all specifically to celebrate an offensive event.Don't have to rent apartments to non-Christians because one would be endorsing a non-Christian lifestyle. Don't sell food to a married gay couple for the same reason. Refuse to treat the child of a gay couple because of their "lifestyle choices".
Guess which of these have actually happened so far?
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.The only unlawful marriage I'm aware of in this context was the dog wedding one of the bakers said he'd provide a cake for.
As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of,Emphasis mine.