Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 California boy, if I ever start a bakery, you can shop at my store. If you ever need home health or hospice services (heaven forbid), I will not withhold my service. though I do not support your life style, I do support your rights to live according to the dictates of your own conscience. That is what I support, not your lifestyle. That is what people don't get. I can sell a cake for a gay wedding in support of the religious liberties and rights of others to live according to the dictates of their own consciences. In fact, I celebrate that right and will sell you a hundred cakes if you want. If my product is not wrong to sell to a Mormon, it is not wrong to sell to a gay person. Are you selling the cake because you want to? or because you have to? 2
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Well SSM is relatively new and evolving, in polygamy they have several partners as well, they're open marriages, for instance.I hope that eventually most, if not all gay marriages will be monogamous, in a perfect world. I'm guess I'm an obnoxious moralist when it comes to fidelity. And a believer in someone not suffering with inequality.Somewhere I read someone ask the question, why did God make individuals have these tendencies, he's not an inept God is he? Not in those words exactly. And now I'm sure you'll compare it to people born with disabilities No I will not compare it to disabilities. You tell me why did God make individuals with the rest of the tendencies that plaques the human race and then I will tell you why that one. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Then I will count you among us who are unwilling to take up Elder Oaks call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning. We serve all of God's children, rich or poor, bond or free, saint or sinner. We are all beggars unto Christ. I personally would always want you to have the ability and right to express your freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior or anything else you think is sinful. Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them. I agree up to the point that we shouldnt legislate immorality. Thats my whole point Vote NO on homosexual marriage.
Tacenda Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 No I will not compare it to disabilities. You tell me why did God make individuals with the rest of the tendencies that plaques the human race and then I will tell you why that one.Oh dear, I stink at using the right phrasing, change "tendencies" to orientation please.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Your statement is not self evident. Please explain. Is being able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple a matter of religious freedom?
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Oh dear, I stink at using the right phrasing, change "tendencies" to orientation please. It doesn't matter what word you use the answer remains the same. You tell me why did God makes individuals with the rest of the tendencies orientations that plagues the human race and then I will tell you why that one.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Is being able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple a matter of religious freedom?Depends on the religion, or even the personal beliefs of the vendor.
DJBrown Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Which supports the idea that what many gay "marriage" proponents really want with their redefinition of marriage is to define it out of existence. You are familiar with those within that community that have admitted as much?
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Is being able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple a matter of religious freedom? Only to the extent that is included in the concept of individual freedom. Does the desire for a cake outweigh someones individual freedom? I thought that was settled when we fought a war so that certain people (black people specifically) would no longer be forced to hoe cotton, clean house or bake cakes if they didn't want to. 1
Calm Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I hope that eventually most, if not all gay marriages will be monogamous, in a perfect world. If there any sign that in countries that have allowed gay marriages or civil partnerships for a longer time, that gay marriage is becoming more monogamous and less open in terms of sexual behaviour with those not one's spouse?
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) I think you have the timeline wrong. Prop 8 was started before the California Supreme court ruled. The Election occurred after the ruling. So technically, Prop 8 was initiated before the state recognized homosexual marriage. I'm sorry, your timeline is incorrect. Prop 22 was first found unconstitutional in 2005 by the SF County Superior Court. It was then appealed and found unconstitutional again by the CA Supreme Court in May of 2008. Prop 8 was submitted in June of 2008. Gay marriages were being performed and legally recognized prior to the vote for Prop 8. Edited January 29, 2015 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 You are familiar with those within that community that have admitted as much?Not specifically, but there existence would not surprise me.
DJBrown Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Is being able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple a matter of religious freedom? The true goal of those campaigning for same-sex marriage is to have society as a whole accept the idea that homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, is morally no different than traditional, heterosexual marriage. Religious people are being expected to give up their beliefs by default. They are being told to give up those things in life that disagree with that assertion of equality. So, yes. It is a matter of religious freedom. Edited January 29, 2015 by DJBrown 1
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Only to the extent that is included in the concept of individual freedom. Does the desire for a cake outweigh someones individual freedom? I thought that was settled when we fought a war so that certain people (black people specifically) would no longer be forced to hoe cotton, clean house or bake cakes if they didn't want to. The apostles seem to feel that it is a matter of religious freedom. And if being able to not bake a cake for a gay wedding is a matter of religious freedom, I submit the the gay wedding itself must also be a matter of religious freedom.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 The true goal of those campaigning for same-sex marriage is to have society as a whole accept the idea that homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, is morally no different than traditional, heterosexual marriage. Religious people are being expected to give up their beliefs by default. They are being told to give up those things in life that disagree with that assertion of equality. So, yes. It is a matter of religious freedom. There are religious people (myself included) who believe that same-sex marriage is no different than traditional marriage. It is a matter of religious freedom and as such it needs to work both ways. 1
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I'm sorry, your timeline is incorrect. Prop 22 was first found unconstitutional in 2005 by the SF County Superior Court. It was then appealed and found unconstitutional again by the CA Supreme Court in May of 2008. Prop 8 was submitted in June of 2008. Gay marriages were being performed and legally recognized prior to the vote for Prop 8. Which is all part of the process of making changes in government. There are always challenges and counter challenges until it gets ironed out and there should not be any recriminations for using the system. You seem to think it was wrong to do so.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) The apostles seem to feel that it is a matter of religious freedom. And if being able to not bake a cake for a gay wedding is a matter of religious freedom, I submit the the gay wedding itself must also be a matter of religious freedom. If you will read what I said you will see that I don't disagree with that. Religious freedom IMNSHO is part of individual freedom so they are not wrong. The freedom to have a SSM has been approved by the governments of several states and it is within their prerogative to do so. Tell me does the right to marriage contain the right to indenture my person and talent to cater that wedding whether i want to or not? Edited January 29, 2015 by ERayR
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Is being able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple a matter of religious freedom? To some it certainly could be. No question about it.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Which is all part of the process of making changes in government. There are always challenges and counter challenges until it gets ironed out and there should not be any recriminations for using the system. You seem to think it was wrong to do so. No. It is not wrong to participate in the process.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Are you selling the cake because you want to? or because you have to? Because I want to. If someone doesn't want to sell the cake to a gay guy, and the gay guy doesn't want to shop at an inferior bakery as far as quality goes, someone has to be strong-armed in this scenario, either the discriminator or the discriminatee. In this particular case, I support the discriminatee, and find the discriminator to be the greater evil. I would support any legislation to make it so.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 To some it certainly could be. No question about it. Which is why I said this: "And if being able to not bake a cake for a gay wedding is a matter of religious freedom, I submit the the gay wedding itself must also be a matter of religious freedom."
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 There are religious people (myself included) who believe that same-sex marriage is no different than traditional marriage. It is a matter of religious freedom and as such it needs to work both ways. Marriage us not a religious ceremony. It is a ceremony allowed and licensed by the state and as a citizen of the state it is my right and duty to engage in serious debate about its impact on my state.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Because I want to. If someone doesn't want to sell the cake to a gay guy, and the gay guy doesn't want to shop at an inferior bakery as far as quality goes, someone has to be strong-armed in this scenario, either the discriminator or the discriminatee. In this particular case, I support the discriminatee, and find the discriminator to be the greater evil. I would support any legislation to make it so. Then good on you but do you think indenturing someone who doesn't want to into slavery for the time it takes to do the cake is right? 2
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) I'm sorry, your timeline is incorrect. Prop 22 was first found unconstitutional in 2005 by the SF County Superior Court. It was then appealed and found unconstitutional again by the CA Supreme Court in May of 2008. Prop 8 was submitted in June of 2008. Gay marriages were being performed and legally recognized prior to the vote for Prop 8. Please Do your research first. The superior court decision was reversed in 2006 by the court of appeals The proposition was written and and being circulated for signatures when the Supreme court reversed the court of appeals. Edited January 29, 2015 by Danzo
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 If you will read what I said you will see that I don't disagree with that. Religious freedom IMNSHO is part of individual freedom so they are not wrong. Right... so by fighting against gay couples' ability to marry we are fighting against their religious freedom. That's the problem I have with our Prop 8 campaign.
Recommended Posts