Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grasping the after wind" data-source="post: 72074377" data-attributes="member: 256417"><p>As a Lutheran you are wrong to say religion happens in a church. First off we are the Church not some building you may go to on a Sunday. I would also advise you to read the writings of those founders you think had the notion that religion happens in a building one day a week. I suspect you will find that was not the case. If you read Paul you may notice that he has said that for everything you do you do it to the glory of God. So yes even baking a cake is part of the religion in that sense.</p><p>Despite what i have heard about the nature of the arguments of the defense team and of the [prosecution team , this case is not strictly about religious freedom or same sex discrimination . It is also about what can be demanded from a person regarding their own labor. Same sex discrimination is illegal, Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. The question is not can a merchant discriminate against people that have a same sex relationship. that is clearly not legal. The question also is not, can a person claim that their religious beliefs are over arching in all circumstances. that is clearly unreasonable. Either position would be without merit and not even considered by the Supreme Court. The question here is also how much can be demanded of a merchant by a customer. If a gun seller were told by a customer that he/she intended to put the gun to a use that the seller found to be in total contradiction to that seller's beliefs would the seller be wrong to refuse to sell that particular at gun to a patron? This is a few steps removed form the real life situation being adjudicated but it has relevance to it from a philosophic point of view. Had the baker simply refused to sell anything to the same sex couple because they were a same sex couple I could not see any merit in the baker's case but the baker only refused to sell a specific item to the couple while citing concerns of conscience based upon religious belief. As there were numerous alternative merchants more than willing to undertake the request, I can see no undue harm done to the plaintiffs other than being inconvenienced by going elsewhere to obtain the product they desired which was readily available in numerous other establishments. . In this case the only real harm that might have taken place would be to the baker by having the government use force to intimidate the baker into acting against the baker's conscience based upon the baker's religious beliefs. I cannot know if the baker is a truthful person or not. If I were to judge this case according to the law of the land then I must take what the baker says were the motivating factors of the baker's refusal as sincere unless proven otherwise. To punish the baker for a sincerely held religious belief because that baker's refusal to provide a specific service inconveniences a customer and because that customer claims discrimination based upon being denied a specific item and not because the customer was denied service in general does not seem reasonable to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grasping the after wind, post: 72074377, member: 256417"] As a Lutheran you are wrong to say religion happens in a church. First off we are the Church not some building you may go to on a Sunday. I would also advise you to read the writings of those founders you think had the notion that religion happens in a building one day a week. I suspect you will find that was not the case. If you read Paul you may notice that he has said that for everything you do you do it to the glory of God. So yes even baking a cake is part of the religion in that sense. Despite what i have heard about the nature of the arguments of the defense team and of the [prosecution team , this case is not strictly about religious freedom or same sex discrimination . It is also about what can be demanded from a person regarding their own labor. Same sex discrimination is illegal, Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. The question is not can a merchant discriminate against people that have a same sex relationship. that is clearly not legal. The question also is not, can a person claim that their religious beliefs are over arching in all circumstances. that is clearly unreasonable. Either position would be without merit and not even considered by the Supreme Court. The question here is also how much can be demanded of a merchant by a customer. If a gun seller were told by a customer that he/she intended to put the gun to a use that the seller found to be in total contradiction to that seller's beliefs would the seller be wrong to refuse to sell that particular at gun to a patron? This is a few steps removed form the real life situation being adjudicated but it has relevance to it from a philosophic point of view. Had the baker simply refused to sell anything to the same sex couple because they were a same sex couple I could not see any merit in the baker's case but the baker only refused to sell a specific item to the couple while citing concerns of conscience based upon religious belief. As there were numerous alternative merchants more than willing to undertake the request, I can see no undue harm done to the plaintiffs other than being inconvenienced by going elsewhere to obtain the product they desired which was readily available in numerous other establishments. . In this case the only real harm that might have taken place would be to the baker by having the government use force to intimidate the baker into acting against the baker's conscience based upon the baker's religious beliefs. I cannot know if the baker is a truthful person or not. If I were to judge this case according to the law of the land then I must take what the baker says were the motivating factors of the baker's refusal as sincere unless proven otherwise. To punish the baker for a sincerely held religious belief because that baker's refusal to provide a specific service inconveniences a customer and because that customer claims discrimination based upon being denied a specific item and not because the customer was denied service in general does not seem reasonable to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case
Top
Bottom