US Supreme Court/Petition Consideration/Bakery/Same-Sex Wedding

[AACJ]

The US Supreme Court will be deciding soon (tomorrow the 17th, I believe) to accept or reject a case involving a Colorado baker objecting to being forced to create cakes for same-sex weddings. I believe this will be the first such case to be heard at the SCOTUS level.

Of course this will have enormous ramifications. I am praying for victory for the conscientious objector (Masterpiece Cakeshop) if the Court grants the petition for consideration.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - SCOTUSblog

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/how-a-cakemaker-became-an-enemy-of-the-state/

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

Update (6-26-17): SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case.

Edited: Concerning discrimination based on the word, "sex," there is nothing in the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that includes, in the definition of "sex," sexual preference/orientation, nor gay marriage. Nothing. Have I overlooked something? Is there a federal clause or an amendment somewhere I am overlooking? If so, then someone please point it out.

This is not just about the homosexual community's supposed "right" to force a baker to bake or sale them a cake. This is also about the erosion of liberty and the wholesale attack on America's historical protection of the The Right and Liberty of Conscience. That right was considered absolutely fundamental to the Founders and early Americans and is Biblically supported. The violation of this fundamental right that has occurred through misinterpretation and lawmaking is one of the main indicators that demonstrate the extreme and grotesque errors that liberals have made in interpreting the US/State Constitutions and the Original Intent of the Founders.

One of the important issues at stake here is purpose, intent, usage. Is society at all justified in preventing a private business owner from refusing to sell a product to someone based on the usage of said product?

Should society prevent a gun shop owner from selling a gun to a person who reveals to said owner that he intends to use the weapon to go out and unlawfully take someone's life? Purpose, intent and usage are critically important when addressing the violation of The Right and Liberty of Conscience!

The homosexual community is not satisfied with forcing a business owner to service their gay weddings, they also want lawmakers to put their official stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle through legislation. Add yes, lawmakers do in fact legislate morality in the sense that the laws they pass must be rooted in moral justification and thus in moral absolutes.

To any conservative, Bible-believing, and praying Christian on this thread: If we do not consistently and actively engage the issues addressed in the OP by prayer and other allowable means, then we will be steam rolled by the godless. There is a desperate call to action here. We have won some important victories in battling the liberal agenda. We cannot slacken to give them even an inch. Give certain liberals and the homosexual community in general an inch and they will take a mile, and at the end of that mile figuratively toss us right over the side of the cliff. Do not doubt that for a second.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

The US Supreme Court will be deciding soon (tomorrow the 17th, I believe) to accept or reject a case involving a Colorado baker objecting to being forced to create cakes for same-sex weddings. I believe this will be the first such case to be heard at the SCOTUS level.

Of course this will have enormous ramifications. I am praying for victory for the conscientious objector if the Court grants the petition for consideration.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - SCOTUSblog

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS has already rejected similar cases leaving the lower courts decisions to stand which said that it is discrimination to refuse to sell a cake or product to a same-sex couple. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly says that businesses, that is secular for-profit businesses, cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sex. Discrimination against two people because of their sex is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. No one is forced to go to the wedding. No one is forced to create specific designs that are not already offered by the store/bakery in question. The bakery/store is only legally required to sell a wedding cake. The issue is that the bakery/store refused to sell ANY cakes to them. They could have easily sold a plain wedding cake and they would not have been in violation.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

But with the new thing Trump passed, they may win the case.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

SCOTUS has already rejected similar cases leaving the lower courts decisions to stand which said that it is discrimination to refuse to sell a cake or product to a same-sex couple. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly says that businesses, that is secular for-profit businesses, cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sex. Discrimination against two people because of their sex is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. No one is forced to go to the wedding. No one is forced to create specific designs that are not already offered by the store/bakery in question. The bakery/store is only legally required to sell a wedding cake. The issue is that the bakery/store refused to sell ANY cakes to them. They could have easily sold a plain wedding cake and they would not have been in violation.

The privilege of representing Christ to people, and showing people where they need the Lord, was given by God. Refusing to defy the Lord because sinful man wants one to, just doesn't go - no matter what the supreme court says.
Is the Supreme Court going to say that we are forced to take money from people when we don't want it, just because we are in business?

 

[SilverBear]

The privilege of representing Christ to people, and showing people where they need the Lord, was given by God. Refusing to defy the Lord because sinful man wants one to, just doesn't go - no matter what the supreme court says.
Is the Supreme Court going to say that we are forced to take money from people when we don't want it, just because we are in business?

If you don't want to serve minorities then you shouldn't be in business

 

[HannahT]

Is the Supreme Court going to say that we are forced to take money from people when we don't want it, just because we are in business?

When I was in business I didn't care of they were gay or not.

Although that is NOT to say that I didn't have fire some customers. I've often wonder if that would be affected. I know that is a completely different ball of wax, but that happens too.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

When I was in business I didn't care of they were gay or not.

When I was in business I didn't care either BUT, this is América and if any business wants to refuse service to anyone that should be their right. On issues like these our Country should not be forcing people.

M-Bob

 

[SnowyMacie]

When I was in business I didn't care either BUT, this is América and if any business wants to refuse service to anyone that should be their right. On issues like these our Country should not be forcing people.

M-Bob

People said the same thing in the 1960s to refuse service to black people.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

If you don't want to serve minorities then you shouldn't be in business

Except, homosexuals are not minorities.....they are just plain sinners.

 

[SilverBear]

When I was in business I didn't care either BUT, this is América and if any business wants to refuse service to anyone that should be their right. On issues like these our Country should not be forcing people.

M-Bob

 

[SilverBear]

Except, homosexuals are not minorities.....they are just plain sinners.

Yeah, they are a minority. Deal with it.

 

[brinny]

Praying!

 

[Phil 1:21]

Except, homosexuals are not minorities.....they are just plain sinners.

Matthew 7:3-5

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

When I was in business I didn't care of they were gay or not.

Although that is NOT to say that I didn't have fire some customers. I've often wonder if that would be affected. I know that is a completely different ball of wax, but that happens too.

I don't think people should be turned away because they chose to sin. If that were the case, no one would be served. I do have a problem with endorsing that sin by my efforts. That is where one draws the line.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

Yeah, they are a minority. Deal with it.

No - just sinners looking to have their sin affirmed. Christians don't affirm sin.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

Matthew 7:3-5

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Your first scripture is in reference to committing the same sin, yet calling the other wrong.
The scripture you may be interested in is John 7:24 -English Standard Version
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” Following what Christ taught is right judgment. Homosexuality is a sin. Endorsing sin is evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:22King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Blessings

 

[AACJ]

When I was in business I didn't care either BUT, this is América and if any business wants to refuse service to anyone that should be their right. On issues like these our Country should not be forcing people.

M-Bob

I agree. The grotesque, liberal interpretations of the Commerce Clause has wreaked havoc, creating much greater evil than good. That's something that liberals can't seem to comprehend: in formulating law, it must be considered whether any proposed law(s) will create a greater evil than it can potentially solve.

They also struggle to comprehend the fact that when laws lead to the unraveling of society and the elimination of liberties and freedoms wholesale, then their liberal/unbiblical interpretations of law and early American practice are manifestly in grotesque error.

Will an individual liberal put into practice personal, life-governing principles that result in the ruination of their own lives? Of course not, yet so many of them see no problem with doing just that on a national level concerning a nation.

Too many of them are more concerned with equal results than they are with Truth.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Your first scripture is in reference to committing the same sin, yet calling the other wrong.

Or ignoring your own sin while condemning others. We're all sinners, brother.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

People said the same thing in the 1960s to refuse service to black people.

True that would be wrong and I have never seen that called out in the Bible where as I have seen gay acts called out in the Bible thus we have two different things.

M-Bob

 

[AACJ]

SCOTUS has already rejected similar cases leaving the lower courts decisions to stand which said that it is discrimination to refuse to sell a cake or product to a same-sex couple. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly says that businesses, that is secular for-profit businesses, cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sex. Discrimination against two people because of their sex is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. No one is forced to go to the wedding. No one is forced to create specific designs that are not already offered by the store/bakery in question. The bakery/store is only legally required to sell a wedding cake. The issue is that the bakery/store refused to sell ANY cakes to them. They could have easily sold a plain wedding cake and they would not have been in violation.

Concerning discrimination based on the word, "sex," there is nothing in the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that includes in the definition of "sex" sexual preference/orientation, nor gay marriage. Nothing. Have I overlooked something? Is there a federal clause or an amendment somewhere I am overlooking? If so please point it out.

You have also grossly misrepresented the battle going on with this issue. This is not just about the homosexual community's supposed "right" to make a baker bake them a cake. This is also about the erosion of liberty and the wholesale attack on America's historical protection of the The Right and Liberty of Conscience. That right was considered absolutely fundamental to the Founders and early Americans and was Biblically supported. The violation of this fundamental right that has occurred through misinterpretation and lawmaking is one of the main indicators that demonstrate the extreme and grotesque errors that liberals have made in interpreting the US/State Constitutions and the Original Intent of the Founders.

The homosexual community is not satisfied with forcing a business owners to service their homosexual weddings, they also want lawmakers to put their official stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle through legislation. And yes, lawmakers do in fact legislate morality in the sense that the laws they pass must be rooted in moral justification and thus in moral absolutes.

The homosexual community is intentionally targeting Christians

To any Bible-believing, praying Christian on this thread: If we do not consistently and actively engage the issue mentioned in the OP by prayer and other allowable means, then we will be steam rolled by the godless. There is a desperate call to action here. We have won some important victories in battling the liberal agenda. We cannot slacken to give them even an inch. Give certain liberals and the homosexual community in general an inch and they will take a mile, and at the end of that mile figuratively toss us right over the side of the cliff. Don't doubt it for a second.