Jesus never said to hate others. You are thinking of the Old Testament.
What?
The sword is idelogy. Not violence. He will come and divide the world by His words. He does not say to shun or kill those you are divided against.
Cutting into the middle of Luke 12:51 and pretending it supports you is wrong. The full verse is:
He is, again, talking about his ideology and not violence against members of your own house. Disagreement does not mean you take up against them. The statement is warning you that they may take up violence against you because of His message.
John 7:53 - 8:11 is to teach forgiveness and should also teach you that you should not condemn (or cast the first stone at) someone. Instead, you have taken away the opposite: we must all cast the first stone. Note that the passage does not say “He who is without this sin” it is “He who is without sin.”
And? Being sorry is enough? If the law said that criminals who provably commited a crime but who were genuinely sorry about it get off scot-free, i’d call that condoning and tolerating (and forgiving). If it said that the price of murder was a £100 fine so long as you’re sorry, that would be condoning and tolerating. The end result either way is “Hey, it’s fine if you do that, so long as you’re truly sorry afterwards, we’ll say no more about it and you are the equal of any innocent”.
Am I missing it, or does your link fail to say on what basis the appeal to SCOTUS was made? Perhaps this was noted earlier in the thread? I tried reading back in the thread but it had apparently taken some serious turns away from this specific topic.
I assume, since this appeal to SCOTUS is against a state law, that the basis is that the state law violates the US constitution in some way. National Review suggests that the argument is that forcing the baker to make a cake with a message supporting same sex marriage is requiring him to support something verbally, i.e. by the message on the cake, that is against his religious beliefs. NR says this makes it a first amendment issue. Their specific language suggests it is a free speech issue, but the implication seems to be that it is really an issue of free exercise of religion. Am I anywhere near the ballpark here?
Would you legally require a devout Muslim to sell ham sandwiches in his restaurant? Absolutely not. But, you are free to dine in his restaurant and eat whatever is on the menu.
Christian owned bakeries aren’t refusing to sell to the Gay community. Anyone can buy bread, cookies, and cakes that they sell. It’s only personalized wedding cakes that conflicts with their religious views.
The courts should respect people’s sincere religious beliefs. The desire to practice ones religion, without interference, is a founding principal of this country.
The obvious remedy is organize a local boycott of the business. Then the owner has to decide if it’s really worth the sacrifice to uphold his religious views.
Btw, this is not a civil rights case. Businesses that refused to sell to a minority were not basing this on religious beliefs. It was based on bigotry and the courts had to act.
Consumers do have options in where they spend their money.
Bakeries (run by devout Christians) may have to stop selling personalized wedding cakes. That would eliminate any conflict with their beliefs.
They’d sell fresh baked cakes. With no writing or wedding decorations. What people do with the cakes is their personal business.
AFAIK these Christian bakery owners aren’t refusing to sell to the gay community. It’s the personal message on the cakes that conflicts with their beliefs.
I think selling generic cakes to everyone would satisfy the courts.
Sometimes they say something like till death do us part.
I trying to make the point that the Christian owned bakeries may need to focus on everyday bakery items. Avoid wedding cakes all together. That may be the best way for them to honor their own religious beliefs and still stay within the law.
Depends on how the Supreme Court rules. I have a hunch they’ll side with Gay rights over religious freedom.
Suppose an African-American cake artist refused to create a cake symbolizing white-supremacism (in a positive way) for the Aryan Nation? Or a an Islamic cake artist refused to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or a secular cake artist refused to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage requested by a Christian patron?
And then suppose that the state commission was presented with complaints about each but refused to apply the state anti-discrimination act to order them to complete the work.
If those suppositions were true, could it be possible that a cake artist might have some sort of legitimate gripe at being ordered to produce an original cake design celebrating a same-sex marriage when he is religiously opposed to it?
[QUOTE=Judge Leon Bazile]
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
[/QUOTE]
Christian doctrine - real or imaginary - was a cornerstone of the enslavement and later less explicit subjugation of African-Americans.
I assume some people who believe this bigotry should be acted upon by the state also think prostitution should be legal. Should a prostitute be allowed to discriminate on whatever socially unacceptable attitudes he or she holds?
I’m not a fancy law talkin’ dude but wouldn’t the fact that the black, Islamic, or secular artists would not make such cakes for anyone but the Christian artist does make wedding cakes, just not for those people, be a large difference?
I will not make this kind of cake for anyone is a defensible position. I will make this kind of cake for anyone but you is less so.
“Such cakes?” Each cake maker makes non-birthday, party celebration cakes.
“Hi, it’s Steve, owner of Steve’s Poodle Grooming. We’d like a cake for our business’ tenth anniversary, something with a poodle theme, maybe with clippers or trimmers too?”
“No problem; what size do you want?”
Versus:
“Hi, it’s Daniel, the local Aryan Nation leader. We’d like a cake for our local chapter’s tenth anniversary, something with the Aryan Nation symbol, maybe with the AB hand signal symbolized too?”
Does the state’s law prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on viewpoints unrelated to the race, gender, age, nationality, religion or sexual orientation of the customer? That would seem to be a necessary first inquiry.
Again, a clear difference in that the bakery can state that they will not use the Aryan Nation symbol on any cake where I’m not sure what the difference in wedding cakes would be between an opposite sex marriage and a same sex one. Perhaps the cake topper? I could see not requiring a baker to stock a cake topper showing a couple of the same sex but I can’t see why he couldn’t bake a cake to allow for a topper to be placed after delivery.
Can you detail the difference between cakes of a same sex marriage vs an opposite sex marriage? A brief search of google images shows cakes that are not materially different from any cake I’ve seen at an opposite sex wedding.