Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think your obvious abhorrence of and intolerance for those whose consciences won't allow them to bow before your idols is certainly one candidate.

Those who treat extremism as an idol to be worshiped have already rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this particular issue extremists also reject the words of Jesus Christ. But to endorse lawlessness as a privilege for religious people is to reject the American creed as well.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I wonder if all those fighting for the baker that is asserting his right to discriminate based on his religious beliefs ever think about where this is all going.  

Hopefully to a place where intolerant bullies cannot use the coercive power of government to punish people they (the bullies) dislike.  Like Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where Christians are free to exercise their constitutional rights.  Like Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where bigoted governmental entities like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission put aside their bigotries and fairly administer the law.  Like what happened to Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where Christian bakers are given the same rights as were given to secular bakers to refuse providing goods or services that violate their conscience.  Like what didn't happen to Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where the gay rights folks are able to tolerate diversity of thoughts and opinion.  Like those of Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where the gay rights folks won't fabricate bigotry where it doesn't exist (e.g., Mr. Phillips) and then turn around and praise bigotry where it manifestly does exist (the Colorado Civil Rights Commission).

Hopefully to a place where "discrimination" is not used in such a slapdash, haphazard way, which includes preemptively condemning Christians for their exercise of their constitutional liberties, and also justifying or excusing people who want to punish Christians for that exercise.

Quote

Let's say that eventually the Supreme Court rules in favor of religion, and they now have the right to discriminate against ANYONE based on their beliefs.  Then what?

Meh.  Your proposition is way too vague.  What does "discriminate" mean here?  Discriminate in what way(s)?  Against whom?  Regarding which goods or services?

Quote

This is kind of like the whole Prop 8 thing.  The church had every right to support a political proposition that took away the civil rights of gay couples.  

Oh, here we go again.

Quote

They even won the battle.  But the consequences of that choice have been pretty severe.  What kind of consequences do you think will happen if religion starts to discriminate?  Will animosity towards religion only increase?  

More to the point is this: Will such animosity be fomented and encouraged by gay rights groups?  I think so.

Will such animosity be excused because of the preemptive "we're only fighting discrimination, so we get to say and do whatever we want against Christans" moral preening and justifications?  I think so.  To be honest, these ongoing warnings to Mormons about the "consequences" they will face if they dare to exercise their constitutional rights come across have a rather strong whiff of - how shall I put it - hectoring going on here. Of the "Nice religion you have here . . . it would be a shame if something happened to it" variety.

Quote

Will more people will leave organized religion, disgusted with such behavior, once again, in "The Name of God".  

"Such behavior" being . . . refusing to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.  Such a refusal gets you the "bigot" label.  Nice.

For the record, I am disgusted at gay rights folks weaponizing government entities like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to punish Christians who refuse to speak in ways that violate their religious convictions.

Quote

When you tell someone you are Christian, are you prepared to be looked upon as a bigot and someone who threats others unkindly even if you are not and would gladly serve anyone?  

Notice the convenient use of the passive voice here ('be looked upon as a bigot")?  And who is going to be doing this "look{ing} upon?"  Who is going to be accusing (falsely) religious folks like Mr. Phillips of bigotry?  Well, the gay rights folks (some of them).  

Quote

The exercising of this right is going to label all Christians whether they like it or not and no matter how unfair that label is.  Be careful what you wish for.  

"The exercising of this right is going to label all Christans."  And who is going to be taking care of this "labeling," I wonder?  The same quality of individuals as we saw on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, no doubt.

In other words, there will be some pretty massive blowback from the gay rights crowd against any Christian individual or group who dares to exercise their right.  That is what CB is warning.  Or is it "threatening?"  "Be careful what you wish for" sure comes across as a threat.

Imagine any other minority group being warned (threatened?) in this way.  Consider black folks in the Deep South on their way to vote in the 1960s.  Some stranger comes up to them and says "Hello!  I can see that you are on your way to vote.  But have you ever think about where this is all going?  Now, don't get me wrong.  You have every right to vote.  But what kind of consequences do you think will happen if you do exercise that right?  Won't animosity towards black people only increase? And won't that increase in animosity be your fault?  You know that exercising your rights will anger others, so that anger will be your fault.  The exercising of your right to vote is going to make white people resent you more, no matter how unfair that resentment is. Be careful what you wish for."

I think it is deeply disturbing that in 2018 we are regressing on civil liberties.  

But in the end, I think our lot is to "do what is right, let the consequence follow."  Even if that "consequence" includes orchestrated campaigns of inciting animosity against Christians.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The exercising of this right is going to label all Christians whether they like it or not and no matter how unfair that label is.  Be careful what you wish for.  

This absolutely Cuts both ways. I hope that all those the left, and especially the LGBT community, understand that if they succeed in creating a government that compels individuals to violate their religious conscience, they will be seen not only as anti-religion.  Regardless of whether every member of the LGBT community actually hates and wants to punish anyone who dares express disapproval or disagreement, that's how you will be seen.

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Quote

The exercising of this right is going to label all Christians whether they like it or not and no matter how unfair that label is.  Be careful what you wish for.  

This absolutely Cuts both ways. 

Quite so.  

I am open to being persuaded, but not bullied.  A position whose advocates cannot justify by persuasion and reasoning, and whose advocates instead are resorting to shunning, false accusations, weaponized use of anti-religious bigots in government (such as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), etc., is not a position I will accept.

Nobody likes a bully, but that is what the gay rights movement is becoming (at least those portions of it that are).  Intolerant bullies that are demanding capitulation to their point of view.  It won't work on me.  And I think it won't work on many other people.

Quote

I hope that all those the left, and especially the LGBT community, understand that if they succeed in creating a government that compels individuals to violate their religious conscience, they will be seen not only as anti-religion. 

More than that, they will be "anti-religion."  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a case in point.  

Quote

Regardless of whether every member of the LGBT community actually hates and wants to punish anyone who dares express disapproval or disagreement, that's how you will be seen.

Yep.  I have been working hard to not view the general gay rights movement through this lens.  But the behavior and rhetoric I have seen relative to the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter is not helping.  At all.

How widespread is this anti-Christian animus in the LGBT community?  How much intolerance of divergent viewpoints?

How many in the LGBT community are not satisfied with the legalization of same-sex marriage, and now want to punish religious people who oppose it, even though it's a fait accompli? 

How many want to coerce people like me into speaking in ways that violate my religious beliefs?

How many want to punish me if I choose to not speak in ways that violate my religious beliefs?

How many want to use government to punish people like me if I choose to not speak in ways that violate my religious beliefs?

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The question that pops into my head is, how many business owners are actually going to refuse to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs? Most business owners would want to get and keep as many customers as they can.
I know if I had the cake baking business I would sell to anyone. Doesn't mean I support or approve of their lifestyle choice, it just means I want their money. I should be confident enough in my religious beliefs that I don't have to force what I believe on someone else. My friends and fellow church members would know where I stand on the subject and therefore would not see my serving certain people means that I approve of how they live; It just means I want to run a successful business. Thousands of church members work in and even own businesses that sell alcohol, but it doesn't mean they support the drinking of it. 

I absolutely agree with you.  I do think that very few businesses will use religion as an excuse to discriminate.  Unfortunately, there will be a few if it becomes illegal,, and they will get all the press.  As unfair as it might be, I think all religion will be blamed for the way those few treat their customers.   

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I see the as fundamentally missing the point that most of "us" are trying to make. The issue in our view is not a "right to discriminate" especially not against gay people. As I've said repeatedly, I would have zero problem with baking the cake. So much so, that I don't even see this case as a "Christian" issue.  Just to be explicit: I think the baker's behavior was wrong from my moral judgement. 

But it's BS to try to frame it as a right to discriminate. It is pretty telling when you need an organized media campaign to control the message and avoid the real substance of the issue. Most people I know of "defending the baker" are actually opposing the State's intrusion on religious exercise. Even when that religious exercise is something we personally disagree with.  You know. Pluralism. 

i need an organized media program?  CFR that I ever created an organized media program.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sincerely doubt that. You've certainly repeatedly demonstrated you endless unhappiness with any previous outcome not in your express favour.

As a rule, I'm not bothered by attempts at emotional blackmail perpetrated by oppressors pretending to be victims, so I hope you'll forgive me if I decline to let you redefine my comment as a 'personal attack'.

Thanks for the apology for personally attacking me and telling me what I think.  Oh wait.  You didn't apology.  Never mind.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I wonder if all those fighting for the baker that is asserting his right to discriminate based on his religious beliefs ever think about where this is all going.  Let's say that eventually the Supreme Court rules in favor of religion, and they now have the right to discriminate against ANYONE based on their beliefs.  Then what?

This is kind of like the whole Prop 8 thing.  The church had every right to support a political proposition that took away the civil rights of gay couples.  They even won the battle.  But the consequences of that choice have been pretty severe.  What kind of consequences do you think will happen if religion starts to discriminate?  Will animosity towards religion only increase?  Will more people will leave organized religion, disgusted with such behavior, once again, in "The Name of God".  When you tell someone you are Christian, are you prepared to be looked upon as a bigot and someone who threats others unkindly even if you are not and would gladly serve anyone?  The exercising of this right is going to label all Christians whether they like it or not and no matter how unfair that label is.  Be careful what you wish for.  

I think Christ taught us great wisdom when He addressed this very subject.  

"And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt. 5:41). By law, Roman soldiers could force citizens of Israel or any foreigner to carry their backpacks for a mile.  Christ taught, not to just go a mile, but do more than is asked of you.  Why did He teach such a principle?  What was He trying to tell us?  I think Christians would be wise to follow the teachings of those whom they claim to follow.  

Perhaps some here are fighting on the wrong side of this issue.  Perhaps you have much more to loose if this "right to discriminate" is granted than the gay couple looking for a wedding cake.

If I weren’t already deeply opposed to you on this matter, your implied threat in this post would be enough to drive me there. 

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

i need an organized media program?  CFR that I ever created an organized media program.

Never said or implied anything about you personally. The HRC and ACLU have hired PR firms to spin the media reporting. 

 

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hopefully to a place where intolerant bullies cannot use the coercive power of government to punish people they (the bullies) dislike.  Like Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where Christians are free to exercise their constitutional rights.  Like Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where bigoted governmental entities like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission put aside their bigotries and fairly administer the law.  Like what happened to Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where Christian bakers are given the same rights as were given to secular bakers to refuse providing goods or services that violate their conscience.  Like what happened to Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where the gay rights folks are able to tolerate diversity of thoughts and opinion.  Like those of Mr. Phillips.

Hopefully to a place where the gay rights folks won't fabricate bigotry where it doesn't exist (e.g., Mr. Phillips) and then turn around and praise bigotry where it manifestly does exist (the Colorado Civil Rights Commission).

Hopefully to a place where "discrimination" is not used in such a slapdash, haphazard way, which includes preemptively condemning Christians for their exercise of their constitutional liberties, and also justifying or excusing people who want to punish Christians for that exercise.

Meh.  Your proposition is way too vague.  What does "discriminate" mean here?  Discriminate in what way(s)?  Against whom?  Regarding which goods or services?

Oh, here we go again.

More to the point is this: Will such animosity be fomented and encouraged by gay rights groups?  I think so.

Will such animosity be excused because of the preemptive "we're only fighting discrimination, so we get to say and do whatever we want against Christans" moral preening and justifications?  I think so.  To be honest, these ongoing warnings to Mormons about the "consequences" they will face if they dare to exercise their constitutional rights come across have a rather strong whiff of - how shall I put it - hectoring going on here. Of the "Nice religion you have here . . . it would be a shame if something happened to it" variety.

"Such behavior" being . . . refusing to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.  Such a refusal gets you the "bigot" label.  Nice.

For the record, I am disgusted at gay rights folks weaponizing government entities like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to punish Christians who refuse to speak in ways that violate their religious convictions.

Notice the convenient use of the passive voice here ('be looked upon as a bigot")?  And who is going to be doing this "look{ing} upon?"  Who is going to be accusing (falsely) religious folks like Mr. Phillips of bigotry?  Well, the gay rights folks (some of them).  

"The exercising of this right is going to label all Christans."  And who is going to be taking care of this "labeling," I wonder?  The same quality of individuals as we saw on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, no doubt.

In other words, there will be some pretty massive blowback from the gay rights crowd against any Christian individual or group who dares to exercise their right.  That is what CB is warning.  Or is it "threatening?"  "Be careful what you wish for" sure comes across as a threat.

Imagine any other minority group being warned (threatened?) in this way.  Consider black folks in the Deep South on their way to vote in the 1960s.  Some stranger comes up to them and says "Hello!  I can see that you are on your way to vote.  But have you ever think about where this is all going?  Now, don't get me wrong.  You have every right to vote.  But what kind of consequences do you think will happen if you do exercise that right?  Won't animosity towards black people only increase? And won't that increase in animosity be your fault?  You know that exercising your rights will anger others, so that anger will be your fault.  The exercising of your right to vote is going to make white people resent you more, no matter how unfair that resentment is. Be careful what you wish for."

I think it is deeply disturbing that in 2018 we are regressing on civil liberties.  

But in the end, I think our lot is to "do what is right, let the consequence follow."  Even if that "consequence" includes orchestrated campaigns of inciting animosity against Christians.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I hope you understand why I have no desire to respond to your post.  See this post here.  You may have apologized, but you never took back any of the nasty things you called me.

Edited June 11, 2018 by california boy

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The question that pops into my head is, how many business owners are actually going to refuse to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs? Most business owners would want to get and keep as many customers as they can.

I agree.  That's why the weaponization of Public Accommodations laws and Anti-Discrimination statutes is not only deeply problematic (from a constitutional and moral point of view) but also deeply unnecessary.  If a baker is asked to use his artistic "speech" to convey a message that contravenes his convictions, he should be at liberty to decline to do so.  The customer is free to patronize other bakers who do not find the speech objectionable.  Everyone wins.  The customer gets his message, the second- baker gets paid, and the first baker gets to keep his scruples.

But that's not enough for the gay rights crowd.  It's not about "discrimination."  It's about punishing Christians.  It's about coercing them into capitulation.

Quote

I know if I had the cake baking business I would sell to anyone. Doesn't mean I support or approve of their lifestyle choice, it just means I want their money.

More power to you.  But here's the thing: What if you want to retain the option of not "sell[ing] to anyone" if you find their request to be offensive to you?

If you are a baker, and if you find racism deplorable, do you want the option of refusing to designing a cake with a racist message on it?

If you are a baker who is homosexual, do you want the option of refusing to design a cake with a "Gays Need to Repent!" message on it?

Quote

I should be confident enough in my religious beliefs that I don't have to force what I believe on someone else. My friends and fellow church members would know where I stand on the subject and therefore would not see my serving certain people means that I approve of how they live; It just means I want to run a successful business.

That is a perfectly acceptable point of view.  But what about people who are concerned about being seen as "approv[ing] of" a particular message, and so may want the option of not creating/perpetuating that message?

I will note, yet again, that Mr. Phillips didn't refuse to serve "certain people" (homosexuals).  He refused to prepare a gay wedding cake.  It was the message on the cake that he refused, not the customers requesting that message.  If a heterosexual friend of the gay couple were to have placed the order, Mr. Phillips would have also declined it.  And if they gay couple had requested a non-descript cake with no overt messaging endorsing same-sex marriage, he would have made it for them.  

Quote

Thousands of church members work in and even own businesses that sell alcohol, but it doesn't mean they support the drinking of it. 

Quite so.  And they have that option.  But what about the store owner who, for religious or any other reasons, does not want to sell tobacco products?  Or alcohol?  Or pornography?  It's not that he is refusing to sell these products to gays, while simultaneously selling them to everyone else.  He refuses to carry these products at all, and refuses to sell them to anyone.  Should he be punished for that?  Should the government coerce him into selling these items against his will?

-Smac

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This absolutely Cuts both ways. I hope that all those the left, and especially the LGBT community, understand that if they succeed in creating a government that compels individuals to violate their religious conscience, they will be seen not only as anti-religion.  Regardless of whether every member of the LGBT community actually hates and wants to punish anyone who dares express disapproval or disagreement, that's how you will be seen.

 

You are right if LGBT businesses start discriminating against Christians. I hope they don't.  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I hope you understand why I have no desire to respond to your post.  See this post here.  You may have apologized, but you never took back any of the nasty things you called me.

I have repeatedly apologized for my intemperate remarks.  I do so again here.  If you want to further discuss this, perhaps a PM would be better.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I weren’t already deeply opposed to you on this matter, your implied threat in this post would be enough to drive me there. 

Why is every Mormon want to make this personal.  I am just expressing an idea.  Gheeze.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

You are right if LGBT businesses start discriminating against Christians. I hope they don't.  

LGBT government officials already are. 

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Never said or implied anything about you personally. The HRC and ACLU have hired PR firms to spin the media reporting. 

 

From your post

Quote

 

I see the as fundamentally missing the point that most of "us" are trying to make. The issue in our view is not a "right to discriminate" especially not against gay people. As I've said repeatedly, I would have zero problem with baking the cake. So much so, that I don't even see this case as a "Christian" issue.  Just to be explicit: I think the baker's behavior was wrong from my moral judgement. 

But it's BS to try to frame it as a right to discriminate. It is pretty telling when you need an organized media campaign to control the message and avoid the real substance of the issue. Most people I know of "defending the baker" are actually opposing the State's intrusion on religious exercise. Even when that religious exercise is something we personally disagree with.  You know. Pluralism.

 

 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why is every Mormon want to make this personal.  I am just expressing an idea.  Gheeze.

Not really. The idea has serious personal impacts for religious believers. I don't see people making this personal. I see them reacting to a very personal attack. 

It may seems personal, but only if you ignore that reality. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why is every Mormon want to make this personal.  I am just expressing an idea.  Gheeze.

Yeah. 

The “idea” you express illustrates what has become all too clear in recent years: For all the lip service they pay to “diversity” and “tolerance,” liberals and progressives — including the gay rights movement — get as oppressive and coercive as they can be when anyone dares disagree with their agenda. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

LGBT government officials already are. 

Which is wrong and which is why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker.  Believe me, I am the first to admit that there are many LGBT people who do not like what religion has done to them personally and are guilty of treating Christians unkindly.  They too need to look to the Savior for guidance.  Unfortunately many have also lost their faith because of how they have been treated.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

From your post:

It is pretty telling when you need an organized media campaign to control the message and avoid the real substance of the issue

 

Yeah, not you personally, the generic you. The English language does have some ambiguity. 

I could have been more precise: 

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is pretty telling when you need an organized media campaign to control the message and avoid the real substance of the issue

It is pretty telling that those opposing the baker needed an organized media campaign to control the message and avoid the real substance of the issue. 

Not that you personally created said campaign. But you are parroting the message they identified. 

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah. 

The “idea” you express illustrates what has become all too clear in recent years: For all the lip service they pay to “diversity” and “tolerance,” liberals and progressives — including the gay rights movement — get as oppressive and coercive as they can be when anyone dares disagree with their agenda. 

I am the first to admit that MANY people in this country do not like businesses to discriminate and have littler tolerance to that idea.  Which is why I posted a very possible outcome if business owners are legally allowed to discriminate because of their religious beliefs.  Time will tell who wins this battle and who looses the war.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Which is wrong and which is why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker.  Believe me, I am the first to admit that there are many LGBT people who do not like what religion has done to them personally and are guilty of treating Christians unkindly.  They too need to look to the Savior for guidance.  Unfortunately many have also lost their faith because of how they have been treated.  

Thank you. I'm not happy about the increasing Animus and ill-will in our society. I don't speak of it as a good thing. It is scary. 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More power to you.  But here's the thing: What if you want to retain the option of not "sell[ing] to anyone" if you find their request to be offensive to you?

If you are a baker, and if you find racism deplorable, do you want the option of refusing to designing a cake with a racist message on it?

If you are a baker who is homosexual, do you want the option of refusing to design a cake with a "Gays Need to Repent!" message on it?

The current laws say I have to serve them and give them what they want. Doesn't mean I agree with their beliefs; it just means I am following the law and am therefore exempt from any religious repercussions from my church or God.
(Article of faith #12)
I am guessing your point is that the law should be changed. As far as I'm concerned it can stay the way it is. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am the first to admit that MANY people in this country do not like businesses to discriminate and have littler tolerance to that idea.  Which is why I posted a very possible outcome if business owners are legally allowed to discriminate because of their religious beliefs.  Time will tell who wins this battle and who looses the war.

It was a veiled threat of the “nice religion you have here; it would be a shame if something happened to it” variety. Just as smac said. 

By the way, “loose” is the opposite of tight. “Lose” means to be defeated. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I think Christ taught us great wisdom when He addressed this very subject.  

"And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt. 5:41). By law, Roman soldiers could force citizens of Israel or any foreigner to carry their backpacks for a mile.  Christ taught, not to just go a mile, but do more than is asked of you.  Why did He teach such a principle?  What was He trying to tell us?  I think Christians would be wise to follow the teachings of those whom they claim to follow.  

Perhaps some here are fighting on the wrong side of this issue.  Perhaps you have much more to loose if this "right to discriminate" is granted than the gay couple looking for a wedding cake.

Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Surely you can see that that argument can be used against virtually any position, including yours.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui