Danzo 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?Yes, it can be. Muslim selling bacon? Book store selling porn? photographer making porn? All of these can be violation of ones religious principles. For the state to force someone to do it would be immoral.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 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. ivjd66 stated: Governments should not be allowed to discriminate. Ever. You liked his comment. Should I presume that you agree? Is the legal definition of marriage put forth by the government not discriminatory?
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 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. It is both is both a religious ceremony and a ceremony allowed and licensed by the state. When my bride and I arrived at the temple, we carried with us the legal permission from the state to be married.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, it can be. Muslim selling bacon? Book store selling porn? photographer making porn? All of these can be violation of ones religious principles. For the state to force someone to do it would be immoral. Correct... So it is a matter of religious freedom. So is the wedding for which the service is being denied.
Danzo 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. Why does there have to be any strong-arming at all? Its just a cake!!! Why are you so insistent in forcing people to agree with you? 1
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Correct... So it is a matter of religious freedom. So is the wedding for which the service is being denied. Stay focused, This is about the cake not the wedding. They are two different issues
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 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. My research was absolutely correct. If not, show me where I was wrong. Yes, the proposition was being circulated for signatures because the proponents of it (rightly) figured Prop 22 would be overturned by the CA Supreme Court. Gay marriages WERE legally recognized in California before the initiative that would become Prop 8 was submitted. Gay marriages were legally recognized in California before Prop 8 was on the ballot. Gay marriages were legally recognized in California before Prop 8 was voted into law. Therefore, Prop 8 removed gay couples right to legally marry in California. That was its purpose. And it succeeded... for a time. Why would you deny that? It is what the Church was going for.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Stay focused, This is about the cake not the wedding. They are two different issues Both of which are issues of religious freedom.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 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. IMNSHO it is shaking out what the state government is willing to allow. Religious liberties are out of bounds (or are supposed to be) to governments.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 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? When there are two evils, I will always vote against the greater evil in my eye. Indentured slavery is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Companies are forced to do things for greater good all the time that they may not want to do. I wouldn't consider them indentured slaves by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see this as any different.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 ivjd66 stated: You liked his comment. Should I presume that you agree? Is the legal definition of marriage put forth by the government not discriminatory? Governments can and do discriminate on a daily basis
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Why does there have to be any strong-arming at all? Its just a cake!!! Why are you so insistent in forcing people to agree with you? Read the scenario. Someone must be strong-armed. In other words, "do something that they don't want to do."
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Governments can and do discriminate on a daily basisI agree
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Stay focused, This is about the cake not the wedding. They are two different issuesI thought it was about the baker not wanting to support the gay wedding. If it is about the cake, there would be no discrimination. Edited January 29, 2015 by pogi
thesometimesaint Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 once the issue is decided, do we need to have a trial for the guys who's opinions didn't win? I see no reason too.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 It is both is both a religious ceremony and a ceremony allowed and licensed by the state. When my bride and I arrived at the temple, we carried with us the legal permission from the state to be married. No it is performed by the power vested by the state. That takes it out of the realm of religion. Religions have chosen to accept state sanctioned marriages.as valid for their purposes except for LDS who add our own sealin to the state marriage. Even we accept the state authority of marriage for those who do not go to the temple. The fact that you had to take the states permission to the temple to be validly married should tell you something.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 My research was absolutely correct. If not, show me where I was wrong. Yes, the proposition was being circulated for signatures because the proponents of it (rightly) figured Prop 22 would be overturned by the CA Supreme Court. Gay marriages WERE legally recognized in California before the initiative that would become Prop 8 was submitted. Gay marriages were legally recognized in California before Prop 8 was on the ballot. Gay marriages were legally recognized in California before Prop 8 was voted into law. Therefore, Prop 8 removed gay couples right to legally marry in California. That was its purpose. And it succeeded... for a time. Why would you deny that? It is what the Church was going for. You forgot the Court of appeals decision reversing the superior court decision. You like to twist the truth to support your position. Fact: The petition was started and was in the process of being circulated before the Supreme court made its decision Fact: at the time the petition was started there was no court recognized right to homosexual marriage in california Ergo: The petition was not created to "take a way a court recognized right" The fact that it appeared to do so was only due to the ability of the Supreme Court to issue its opinion before the election (the proposition supporters could not convene a special election) not because of the evil intent for the proposition's supporters to "take something away"
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 No it is performed by the power vested by the state. That takes it out of the realm of religion. Religions have chosen to accept state sanctioned marriages.as valid for their purposes except for LDS who add our own sealin to the state marriage. Even we accept the state authority of marriage for those who do not go to the temple. The fact that you had to take the states permission to the temple to be validly married should tell you something. It is performed in the temple. That makes it religious. More importantly -- for me it is very much a function of religion. But if you want to argue that it is only a state function then denying a cake to a gay marriage ceases to be a matter of religious freedom. I agree that it remains a matter of individual freedom but that is not what our apostles were making a case for two days ago.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Read the scenario. Someone must be strong-armed. In other words, "do something that they don't want to do." No, the person can buy there cake elsewhereThe person can make a cakeThe person can go without cake No strong arming necessary. Only your solution requires force and strong arming. 1
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Both of which are issues of religious freedom. One is freedom, the other is coercion
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 When there are two evils, I will always vote against the greater evil in my eye. Indentured slavery is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Companies are forced to do things for greater good all the time that they may not want to do. I wouldn't consider them indentured slaves by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see this as any different. Since when did refusing to bake a cake become more evil than making someone a slave by requiring him/her to bake a cake? 1
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 When there are two evils, I will always vote against the greater evil in my eye. Indentured slavery is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Companies are forced to do things for greater good all the time that they may not want to do. I wouldn't consider them indentured slaves by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see this as any different. Does the baker have a choice? 1
DJBrown 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. This is inevitable. What about those who believe polygamy should be legal? Or that a brother and sister or mother and son should be able to marry? Where does it end? There is give and take in all of this. Taking more in one direction absolutely takes from the other. It is not possible for there to be total freedom for everybody. We are fooling ourselves.
Pahoran Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Rockpond: Those who disagreed with me likely found comfort in the words of Elder Oaks in yesterday's press conference where he assured everyone that the Brethren do not repent. His words are quoted in the last three lines of this meme: You really ought to avoid making up your own "facts" and then attributing them to the targets of your propaganda. I regret to inform you that Elder Oaks did not "assure everyone that the Brethren do not repent," and that representation is unavailable to anyone making even the slightest effort to get their facts straight. And the words in your "clever" little graphic, which you claim "quoted" Elder Oaks, are not found in the transcript of the Press conference, which may be read here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/publicstatement-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination Why is that? Regards, Pahoran
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 You forgot the Court of appeals decision reversing the superior court decision. You like to twist the truth to support your position. Fact: The petition was started and was in the process of being circulated before the Supreme court made its decision Fact: at the time the petition was started there was no court recognized right to homosexual marriage in california Ergo: The petition was not created to "take a way a court recognized right" The fact that it appeared to do so was only due to the ability of the Supreme Court to issue its opinion before the election (the proposition supporters could not convene a special election) not because of the evil intent for the proposition's supporters to "take something away" I thought I referred to the appeal. If I didn't specifically mention it, I figured the appeal was obvious in that it went to the CA Supreme Court. You now refer to the petition. In our previous posts I never mentioned the petition. I talked about the Church's campaign against Prop 8. That campaign most certainly occurred during the time that gay marriages were legally recognized in California. Even if we were just talking about the petition, obviously it was being created in anticipation of Prop 22 being overturned and gay marriage becoming legal. Are you going to say that a petition was started to solve a problem that did not exist?
Recommended Posts