The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers

[skilts]

I now have a mental picture of you being buried under a pile of heavy leather bound tomes hurled by comely nun types.

Actually, the tomes are hide bound. Poor bugger. You've got to feel for him, but not for long.

 

[Pie eyed]

What do the Christian wedding planners, string quartets and still photographers think of the gays?

Rather than the homophobes having seizures over the wedding, why are they not up in arms about the honeymoon?

 

[Todman]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...rpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html

In the biggest religious liberty case of the year, the US Supreme Court sided 7–2 against a state commission that unfairly singled out a Christian baker who declined to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The high court ruled that state penalties levied against Jack Phillips, the Colorado business owner at the center of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion since the regulations were not applied neutrally.

While the court clearly came down in Phillips’s favor, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged in the court’s opinion that similar cases (like those that have come up involving photographers and florists, as well as pizza shops and a range of other businesses) may be adjudicated differently.

As SCOTUSblog wrote in summary, the decision still allows for the government to bar discrimination against same-sex couples, “so long as the law is applied neutrally and without hostility to religion. But whether the very same law could sometimes violate free speech rights is still totally open.”

According to religious liberty scholar Thomas Berg, law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling opposes outright religious hostility but offers little indication on how future cases would pan out in different contexts.

“This is a narrow, fact-based ruling, resting on two sorts of indicators that the Colorado state decision-makers were hostile to Phillips’s traditionalist religious beliefs about marriage,” he told CT:

First were statements by various civil-rights commissioners denigrating or dismissing his beliefs (one called them “despicable pieces of rhetoric” and compared them to slavery and the Holocaust; another said there’s no right for a person to “act on his religious beliefs if he wants to do business in this state”). Officials in future cases can easily avoid this problem by not articulating such views publicly, even if they hold them. That might not change any results.

Second was that Colorado was inconsistent in several ways in prohibiting Phillips from declining to provide a same-sex-wedding cake, while allowing other bakers to decline to provide cakes with anti-gay messages.

Despite the narrow ruling, today’s decision still has religious freedom advocates celebrating.

“No one should be forced to violate their faith in order to earn a living, and Jack, who I’ve met and consider a friend, just wants to be free to live out his faith in his chosen profession,” stated Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, who was “delighted” at the ruling and its implications for religious freedom.

7 to 2 is not a narrow ruling

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If that's what you guys are about now, go for it.

And it's not freedom of speech you want, it's the freedom to discriminate.

 

[Maggie5]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...rpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html



7 to 2 is not a narrow ruling

Think that you don't understand the definition of 'narrow' ruling. Read the hyperlink in your post or here is another explanation.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018...rpiece-cakeshop-gay-wedding-cake-baker-ruling

 

[Pie eyed]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...rpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html



7 to 2 is not a narrow ruling

You do realise this ruling is in the US?
And that it was not a victory, but a ruling which failed to resolve the issue?

Cling on! Cling on to your old times hokus pokus voodoo man.

 

[TimmeT]

If that's what you guys are about now, go for it.

And it's not freedom of speech you want, it's the freedom to discriminate.

As leople like you have been told repeatedly it is discriminatory againsy religious people to force them to do something they don't believe in for the reason that they follow a religion.

The precedent also doesn't just apply to refusal to for example bake a cake for lesbians but also applies to religious peoples rights to follow their religion and refuse to serve other groups such as hookers etc etc

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

As leople like you have been told repeatedly it is discriminatory againsy religious people to force them to do something they don't believe in for the reason that they follow a religion.

The precedent also doesn't just apply to refusal to for example bake a cake for lesbians but also applies to religious peoples rights to follow their religion and refuse to serve other groups such as hookers etc etc

Then don't own a business. Or open one in Saudi Arabia.

It's just the last spurts of this conservative identity politics. There will be some dumb campiagner religious nuts who want this freedom to discriminate society wide, or to discriminate against blacks (which is quite common amongst some sects) so this bullshit freedom to discriminate will go headfirst into modernity at some point.

The SC won't take any case that might result in these talibans getting the ruling expanded.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

....follow their religion and refuse to serve other groups such as hookers etc etc

Hahaha...Those same hookers the son of God was happy to hang out with but are beneath them.

 

[Pie eyed]

As leople like you have been told repeatedly it is discriminatory againsy religious people to force them to do something they don't believe in for the reason that they follow a religion.

The precedent also doesn't just apply to refusal to for example bake a cake for lesbians but also applies to religious peoples rights to follow their religion and refuse to serve other groups such as hookers etc etc

You live in Australia stupid...none of this applies here in law.
Not even your very incorrect premise.
Protection of religious belief is the protection of your right to be stupid as you like and believe whatever it is you want to believe, but not outside of the laws of the country and certainly not in contradiction of anyone else rights. That includes homosexuals, your children, your spouse and anyone else you come in contact with.
In other words you are entitled to your metal illness, but don't infect the normal people.

 

[sherb]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...rpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html

7 to 2 is not a narrow ruling

You didn't think that one out, did you?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Then don't own a business. Or open one in Saudi Arabia.

It's just the last spurts of this conservative identity politics. There will be some dumb campiagner religious nuts who want this freedom to discriminate society wide, or to discriminate against blacks (which is quite common amongst some sects) so this bullshit freedom to discriminate will go headfirst into modernity at some point.

The SC won't take any case that might result in these talibans getting the ruling expanded.

You are a good example of someone who has been brainwashed probably while studying an arts degree into thinking that western civilisation is this evil civilisation filled with racism,sexism, homophobia etc. Every time someone opposes one of your social views regardless of the reason they give you just believe its a pretence to western bigotry.

99% of the population do not care about a persons gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You are a good example of someone who has been brainwashed probably while studying an arts degree into thinking that western civilisation is this evil civilisation filled with racism,sexism, homophobia etc. Every time someone opposes one of your social views regardless of the reason they give you just believe its a pretence to western bigotry.

99% of the population do not care about a persons gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.

Marxism is Western, you boob.

 

[tandino]

Could a gay baker refuse to bake a cake for an organisation that contradicts his personal beliefs? Some sort of....... church fete sale, I guess.

 

[TimmeT]

You live in Australia stupid...none of this applies here in law.
Not even your very incorrect premise.
Protection of religious belief is the protection of your right to be stupid as you like and believe whatever it is you want to believe, but not outside of the laws of the country and certainly not in contradiction of anyone else rights. That includes homosexuals, your children, your spouse and anyone else you come in contact with.
In other words you are entitled to your metal illness, but don't infect the normal people.

Did I ever say I was referring to australia stupid?
I guess you have no problems with people making comments about not wanting to be infected with the mental illness that is being gay either?

 

[Pie eyed]

Did I ever say I was referring to australia stupid?
I guess you have no problems with people making comments about not wanting to be infected with the mental illness that is being gay either?

I don't see any evidence that being homosexual is a mental illness.
They love other people, who exist.
There is certainly no evidence that homosexuals want to force you to become homosexual or that they should be able to force their morals on you and your children. Unlike the religious.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Rather than the homophobes having seizures over the wedding, why are they not up in arms about the honeymoon?

It’s not like the couple had no other option of bakery’s! If the owner doesn’t want the business it’s his loss and they have the right to refuse it!

The couple is just another whinging piece of rubbish that is of the PC culture

 

[bombersfan4000]

You are a good example of someone who has been brainwashed probably while studying an arts degree into thinking that western civilisation is this evil civilisation filled with racism,sexism, homophobia etc. Every time someone opposes one of your social views regardless of the reason they give you just believe its a pretence to western bigotry.

99% of the population do not care about a persons gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.

The left will offended with that comment!

The glue sniffer KV sure is

 

[Lebbo73]

You are a good example of someone who has been brainwashed probably while studying an arts degree into thinking that western civilisation is this evil civilisation filled with racism,sexism, homophobia etc. Every time someone opposes one of your social views regardless of the reason they give you just believe its a pretence to western bigotry.

99% of the population do not care about a persons gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.

This must be how you behave when you’re not happy with your own existence. KV really needs to get a life. It must be tough being a 40yr old virgin!

 

[The Delusionist]

This must be how you behave when you’re not happy with your own existence. KV really needs to get a life. It must be tough being a 40yr old virgin!

A thread about Christians, and a poster is using virginity as an insult.

 

[Showbags]

As leople like you have been told repeatedly it is discriminatory againsy religious people to force them to do something they don't believe in for the reason that they follow a religion.

The precedent also doesn't just apply to refusal to for example bake a cake for lesbians but also applies to religious peoples rights to follow their religion and refuse to serve other groups such as hookers etc etc

There is no precedent from this case. It was based entirely on the fact that, in the court's opinion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission erred by violating the State's obligation of religious neutrality in this particular case.

The only time it even touched on the substantive arguments made was when Kennedy stated that a business can have their right to the free exercise of their religion limited by law and that he may have been inclined to agree with the Commission if they had remained neutral in the decision.

To pretend like it some big win for "religious liberty" is ridiculous. If anything it is the opposite.

 

[sherb]

As leople like you have been told repeatedly it is discriminatory againsy religious people to force them to do something they don't believe in for the reason that they follow a religion.

So, it's discriminatory to refuse some people the right to discriminate.

That's some logic.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

There is no precedent from this case. It was based entirely on the fact that, in the court's opinion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission erred by violating the State's obligation of religious neutrality in this particular case.

The only time it even touched on the substantive arguments made was when Kennedy stated that a business can have their right to the free exercise of their religion limited by law and that he may have been inclined to agree with the Commission if they had remained neutral in the decision.

To pretend like it some big win for "religious liberty" is ridiculous. If anything it is the opposite.

Can you provide a link to Kennedys full statement please ? Not saying I don't believe you I just didn't see the bit you are talking about were he said he would of been inclined to agree with the commission.

 

[Gough]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-ignore-law-on-reporting-confessions-of-abuse

The South Australian Catholic church will not adhere to a change in law requiring priests to report confessions of child sex abuse, the acting Archbishop of Adelaide has said.

Under the new state law, set to take effect in October, priests who hear confessions about child abuse will have a legal obligation to report the matter to police.

“Politicians can change the law, but we can’t change the nature of the confessional, which is a sacred encounter between a penitent and someone seeking forgiveness and a priest representing Christ,” Bishop Greg O’Kelly told ABC radio in Adelaide on Friday. “It doesn’t affect us.

Talk about arrogant, "it doesn't effect us". Bishop Kelly might want to ask himself why he's in the job and his predecessor is facing two years jail, and reconsider his position in light of that.

 

[owen87]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-ignore-law-on-reporting-confessions-of-abuse

Talk about arrogant, "it doesn't effect us". Bishop Kelly might want to ask himself why he's in the job and his predecessor is facing two years jail, and reconsider his position in light of that.

In real terms; the laws of the country you're in should trump religious beliefs where there's a conflict.