-->
@Snoopy
So you just ignore Leviticus 20:13? Or are you making the argument that it's cool to be gay, just don't ACT on being gay.
"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate
Posts
Total:
737
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I can hate the Supreme Court but I can't use that as a reason to disobey the laws and expect to get away with it.
Yeah, I never implied this.
Can you explain why you're asking, I'll gladly answer?
This doesn't answer my question. I will restate. I presume you are CHristian. Are Hindu marriages 'legitimate' in your view? Are they real?
I don't know.
I mean they're denying your god exists, and are in direct conflict with the ten commandments. Would it be cool of the cake guy to refuse to make their wedding cake based on that objection?
You are conflating "them" with the event. If there is a satanic marriage or something, the guy is probably going to think twice about it.
-->
@Snoopy
You don't know if they're real in your view? How's that possible? Consider the question. What's the matter? Should the baker be allowed to decline doing businesses with Hindus because they're not his religion?
-->
@ludofl3x
So you just ignore Leviticus 20:13? Or are you making the argument that it's cool to be gay, just don't ACT on being gay.
I don't ignore how the behavior is addressed in the bible. We should be wary not to mix committing a sin in one's heart, like lust, with predisposition. I don't mean to say we aren't born into sin, and need salvation either.
-->
@ludofl3x
You don't know if they're real in your view? How's that possible?
Its not up to me, and I'm ignorant of their circumstance.
Consider the question. What's the matter? Should the baker be allowed to decline doing businesses with Hindus because they're not his religion?
Ideally, yes, but the Civil Rights Act is justifiable, and something I continue to support.
-->
@Snoopy
The scriptures do not say "gay = bad"
I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it.
It has been explained previously to you, that the man may refuse towards any offer, regardless of whatever "gay" is, if they do not want to implicate themselves in the actual act.
How does someone justify cherry-picking just the one gay thing out of the basket?
In other words, why does this cake guy not object to any other wedding cakes?
His website says, "He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs."
This specific text strongly suggests that he worships something that says "no gay cakes". I mean, we all sort of imagine he's Christian, but maybe it's something totally out of left field.
Do you think it also says, no Shinto cakes? No Mormon cakes? No Scientologist cakes?
-->
@3RU7AL
It appears to me that you are emotionally invested in this subject matter, because I expect a higher level of discourse from you.
-->
@Snoopy
So ideally, he'd be okay to discriminate against other faiths, too. Sounds like what Jesus would do to me! Gotta say, it sounds like you're talking out of two sides of your mouth: ideally he's okay to discriminate against religions so long as it isn't yours, and you support civil rights. How do you square that?
-->
@Mopac
It appears to me that you are emotionally invested in this subject matter, because I expect a higher level of discourse from you.
Thank you for your reliable dime-store psychoanalysis.
So ideally, he'd be okay to discriminate against other faiths, too
Obviously not. Ideally, there would be no need for men to institute government.
Sounds like what Jesus would do to me! Gotta say, it sounds like you're talking out of two sides of your mouth: ideally he's okay to discriminate against religions so long as it isn't yours, and you support civil rights. How do you square that?
I don't.
-->
@3RU7AL
The scriptures very clearly condemn homosexuality as an aberration, don't kid yourself.
We do see it as a symptom of idolatry.
But lest I mislead you into thinking we derive our religion from scripture, I did not feel it beneficial to use scriptural justification. Scripture is part of our tradition, it is not the source of it.
Also, you don't really know what scripture is to us. What we use it for. That being the case, I don't believe it would be useful to discuss scripture with you.
-->
@Snoopy
Or ideally, there would be no one left believing in anything unprovable to use as a wedge of discrimination, like some magic voice in the sky who says "Don't make cakes for those gross queers I made for you to torment." Instead we'd just recognize that people are equal regardless of faith, sexual orientation or skin color and no one would be going around to funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, employing conversion therapies, or telling people who love each other their love is inferior AND they're going to burn for it, forever, so you can't have a cake otherwise I'm going to burn in hell for making it.
-->
@Mopac
That being the case, I don't believe it would be useful to discuss scripture with you.
Sounds like a great time for you to GTFO then, right? And take your usual deepity non-contributions with?
-->
@Snoopy
No, Ideally, there would be no need for men to institute government.
Governments became necessary when humans figured out how to cultivate wheat.
If you'd like to live as part of a nomadic tribe, please exit the internet.
-->
@ludofl3x
Well stated.Or ideally, there would be no one left believing in anything unprovable to use as a wedge of discrimination, like some magic voice in the sky who says "Don't make cakes for those gross queers I made for you to torment." Instead we'd just recognize that people are equal regardless of faith, sexual orientation or skin color and no one would be going around to funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, employing conversion therapies, or telling people who love each other their love is inferior AND they're going to burn for it, forever, so you can't have a cake otherwise I'm going to burn in hell for making it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Governments became necessary when humans figured out how to cultivate wheat.If you'd like to live as part of a nomadic tribe, please exit the internet.
The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.
-->
@Snoopy
The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.
I'm pretty sure the next stage of our cultural development is going to be an AI council with it's own autonomous enforcement arm.
-->
@ludofl3x
If the invincible ignorance of those I spoke with here deterred me, I would have been gone long ago.
Not sorry to break up the circle jerk.
The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.I'm pretty sure the next stage of our cultural development is going to be an AI council with it's own autonomous enforcement arm.
That sounds so far out to me. Are you serious, like our lives are going to be calculated by computers? Do you mean our children are going to use AI for consistency and impartiality?
-->
@3RU7AL
If the Church chooses not to host gay weddings (themselves, at their own Church), this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not individual members are allowed to attend or otherwise participate in gay weddings (at any other location).
not talking about if they are allowed, but if the practice and teaching parishioners to not recognize gay marriages, then again it's consistent for an individual to also do the same.
Sure, but the one thing does not make the other thing mandatory. It's not a RULE. There's no rule that says "don't make gay cakes".
right not mandatory, which also means they can choose to follow it in the way they think and interpret is best, which for some means no gay wedding cakes. this is very consistent, those who would attend a gay wedding or otherwise support it are the ones not being consistent when in contrast to the teachings.
as for specifics, if the baker was NOT in line with the teachings of his church/faith that would have been the primary point against him, I don't ever recall any such thing therefore it must have been consistent afaik.
it is widely known and accepted there are different interpretations/teachings based on the same books otherwise there could only be one church which could receive tax exempt status etc from the government, yet we know there are many. Therefore your claim of inconsistency/hypocrisy doesn't matter as far as allowing some "sins" but not others, i.e. remarrying divorced people.
It has been shown how the baker's objection is consistent and must be accepted by the government on that basis as they already accept different churches and interpretations of the same book and recognize them as a church/religion. Freedom of religion and separation of from government must also include to a large degree non enforcement of practice and interpretation by the government.
-->
@ludofl3x
Or ideally, there would be no one left believing in anything unprovable to use as a wedge of discrimination, like some magic voice in the sky who says "Don't make cakes for those gross queers I made for you to torment." Instead we'd just recognize that people are equal regardless of faith, sexual orientation or skin color and no one would be going around to funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, employing conversion therapies, or telling people who love each other their love is inferior AND they're going to burn for it, forever, so you can't have a cake otherwise I'm going to burn in hell for making it.
Whoa, where did that come from?
-->
@Snoopy
The bigotry and religious fanaticism of the one saying that, duh.
That is the same type of mentality these secullar religionists project on to all religions other than their own. Being ignorant, they are in denial of the religion they themselves practice, so don't expect any of them to confirm what I am saying about it.
-->
@Mopac
@Snoopy
I'm not sure how it seems crazier to say ideally there we would acknowledge that people are equal and there's no inherent to treat one differently than the other, than it does to say "Ideally there would be no government, only a state of universal grace." Is NOT discriminating really that insane?
Mopac, please show me how what I've said, which is "all people are equal and should be treated thus," is bigoted.
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure how it seems crazier to say ideally there we would acknowledge that people are equal and there's no inherent to treat one differently than the other, than it does to say "Ideally there would be no government, only a state of universal grace." Is NOT discriminating really that insane?
Yeah, actually I think that not discriminating would literally result in insanity
Sooooooooòooooooooooooooooooò for a Gay person not to be able to buy a certain cake , ( a ONE off cake ) from one shop near them , with probably dozens around that will sell them a cake.
So out of fear for a gay persons feeling discriminated against.
You know Maybe you don't want to see a gay persons fellings be hurt.
For this you show not one bit of sypathy for the religious person who CLEARLY , CLEARLY has more to lose.
Bake ( one ) cake to a gay person it's fine.
Bake ( five ) cakes for gay people well thats boarder line maybe still get into heaven.
Bake ( ten ) cakes for gay people and well , there aint no way back from that.
Its as simple as that.
So out of fear for a gay persons feeling discriminated against.
You know Maybe you don't want to see a gay persons fellings be hurt.
For this you show not one bit of sypathy for the religious person who CLEARLY , CLEARLY has more to lose.
Bake ( one ) cake to a gay person it's fine.
Bake ( five ) cakes for gay people well thats boarder line maybe still get into heaven.
Bake ( ten ) cakes for gay people and well , there aint no way back from that.
Its as simple as that.
-->
@Snoopy
I'm pretty sure the next stage of our cultural development is going to be an AI council with it's own autonomous enforcement arm.That sounds so far out to me. Are you serious, like our lives are going to be calculated by computers? Do you mean our children are going to use AI for consistency and impartiality?
I think we're already pretty close to 100% distrust in both government and our fellow neighbor.
Most people agree, at least in principle, that our society should be peaceful and humane.
The law is currently a hodgepodge patchwork of outdated and conflicting regulations and political red meat.
An adequately intelligent AI could hypothetically sift through the law and remove conflicts and redundancies with the aim of creating a more peaceful and humane society.
Case law research is already being conducted by AI. I believe it will eventually replace lawyers and then judges and then politicians (who are mostly lawyers anyway).
People aren't equal. We shouldn't treat everyone the same. State enforced anarchy is a stupid idea, and is wholly destructive and anti-human.
And really, you don't believe what you are saying anyway, because your so called egalitarianism is selective in that it allows people to believe and act on faith so long as it doesn't conflict with your own perverse ideas of what that should look like.
If you are intolerant of those who think are intolerant, you yourself is intolerant.
And so you know, the church is very tolerant. We don't go around persecuting people. In fact, there has not been a period in history where we ourselves were not persecuted. We don't fight back. If we fight at the all, it is because we are pressed into doing so by secular authorities. The church does not believe in warring or rebellion. We are at the mercy of evil men.
Evil men who would love to slaughter us if they could get away with it, and that is exactly what happens every time.
Bakers pump cream into tarts.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Simple solution, buy a cake and don't say what it is used for.
But of course, this is not possible for someone who is trying to make a statement, and maybe a hefty settlement while destroying the livelihood of people who very likely struggled a great deal to get what they have.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
LolBakers pump cream into tarts.