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

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

After all these pages of discussion, it needs to be said again. The question is not whether Jesus or anyone else would bake a cake for whatever purpose or client, but rather whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

Sometimes the government compels us to do something we don't want to do.  It is how we react to that demand that determines what kind of person we are.  That is the message of Christ

Edited June 11, 2018 by california boy

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

After all these pages of discussion, it needs to be said again. The question is not whether Jesus or anyone else would bake a cake for whatever purpose or client, but rather whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

I doubt the government would have needed to force Jesus to bake a cake for a loving couple entering into the commitment of marriage....gay or not.  Christ would do the right thing without any force being necessary, IMO.

Edited June 11, 2018 by ALarson

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

No I do not.  I take Christ at his word as He spoke it.  If the government forces you to do something that you don't want to do, then go the extra mile for the very reason that going the second mile is because you are not compelled by law to do.  You are giving that second mile as a gift to those who compelled you to show kindness towards them.

I don't think Christ was the least bit concerned on whether his neighbors though he was supporting a sinner when he showed kindness towards them.  Christ is telling us to love everyone and show kindness to everyone even when we are compelled to by law.  The way to show that kindness is to do what is required by law and then to go beyond what is required.  Can you imagine the Roman soldier walking that second mile with that Jew asking him "why would you do such a thing".  Can you imagine a baker baking the very best cake they could possibly bake for the gay couple and perhaps giving it to them as a gift?  What would that gay couple now think of Christians?   

Doing more than is asked by the government.  Doing your best, showing kindness when you are not compelled to do so.  As Christ said, it is not hard to show kindness to your friends.  Even the devil does that.  Is not the Spirit whispering to you that this is the better road?

There are times when the kindest thing we can do in response to someone's request is to laugh out loud at them.  To think they are joking when they say something we see as ridiculous.

Surely you're not trying to teach this as an eternal principle, are you? 

We should examine why someone is asking us to do something we consider to be wrong, and if their intent is good, or they have a real need of something that we can provide, sure, there are times when we should do more than they ask of us.

In this case, though, if a government or any customer or anybody were to ask us to do something which we see is wrong, we should not do something even more wrong than what they asked us to do.  WE should instead kindly explain to them why what they desire us to give them is wrong, not good for them, regardless of how much they may want it.  Otherwise we may find ourselves offering to perform the marriage ceremony for them, ourselves, and turn down the bed for them, while never suggesting what they are doing is wrong.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There are times when the kindest thing we can do in response to someone's request is to laugh out loud at them.  To think they are joking when they say something we see as ridiculous.

😂😂😂

 

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I doubt the government would have needed to force Jesus to bake a cake for a loving couple entering into the commitment of marriage....gay or not.  Christ would do the right thing without any force being necessary, IMO.

Which, of course, is the whole point.....force being the operative word.

Whether God approves of marriages other than the kind He ordained is a different issue that has been oft debated here. No need to resurrect the debate here on this thread. We can agree to disagree about it.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sometimes the government compels us to do something we don't want to do.  It is how we react to that demand that determines what kind of person we are.  That is the message of Christ

I’m not sure I understand. How we react to government force determines what kind of person we are, and that is Christ’s message?

Is this what you mean?

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would anyone the least bit concerned with following the Master use, or approve of the use of, government power to force the Samaritan to give charity?

In this case it's more like the government using its authority to prevent the priest from kicking the injured man while he was down.

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What if the Pharisees simply told the good Samaritan that he couldn't go to the temple in Jerusalem if he didn't give to charity?

What if the Pharisees (or more pertinently the Romans) told the Samaritan they would confiscate his business and wealth if he didn’t give to charity? 

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

In this case it's more like the government using its authority to prevent the priest from kicking the injured man while he was down.

I don’t see it that way. Not writing a message on a cake is nothing like kicking an injured man. Forcing the baker to write a message would be more like forcing the Samaritan to take the man to the inn, taking the money out of his purse against his will, and giving it to the innkeeper. That action is not how I understand charity.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Anijen]

I keep seeing the posts that go along this idea; "When the government allows for people to discriminate because of their religion..." Those who have used a variation of that phrase are not understanding the Supreme Court's decision. 

It was NOT government allowed discrimination on Mr. Phillips part. In fact the Supreme Court opinion said as much. Mr. Phillips said he would sell them other items besides the wedding cake. This on its face shows he was NOT discriminating against anyone or any class of people. Mr. Phillips obviously had other reasons not to make the wedding cake, mainly his religious beliefs (First Amendment Rights). It would be discriminatory if he said he would not sell anything to them, but that was not the case.

How people are twisting the issue to became a new issue more suiting to their argument.

If you want to cry "government allowed discrimination" do not look to Mr. Phillips, but to the Colorado Appellate Court. It was they who allowed severe and gross discrimination against a Christian baker comparing him to Nazi's. It was the Colorado Appellate Court that allowed unwarranted searches at any time at Masterpiece Bakery. It was the Colorado Appellate Court who ruled for the mandatory thought control (my words) when they ordered mandatory therapy for Mr. Phillips employees.

If you want to cry that this SCOTUS decision is setting a precedent for government allowed discrimination based on religion, then you have not read the decision and if you have your cognitive bias has blocked, hindered you from understanding.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 Do we need to debate the meaning of the word "force" , again, in this thread, too?  How about coerce?  Can any worldly government coerce Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on a cake?  While threatening  to ban him from heaven, maybe?

Unless I misunderstand the situation, the baker was in peril of losing his livelihood at the hands of the government because he refused to write a message on a cake based on his religious convictions. That appears to me to be an inappropriate use of governmental force, or coercion, if you wish. Do this or lose that. I’m not sure what our disagreement is.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t see it that way. Not writing a message on a cake is nothing like kicking an injured man. Forcing the baker to write a message would be more like forcing the Samaritan to take the man to the inn, taking the money out of his purse, and giving it to the innkeeper. That action is not how I understand charity.

It's more like this. Tim runs a clinic at the side of the road, where he takes care of wounded people. Except, he refuses to take care of Samaritans. So the government says, that Samaritan is dying. If you're going to run this clinic, you're going to have to accept Samaritans too.

So Tim stomps off in a huff screaming about how his rights are being infringed upon, and the government wants to "force" him to provide services he's already voluntarily providing. But he also, bizarrely, claims to be a follower of Jesus. Jesus later denied ever knowing Tim. 

Later Tim would complain that the government forced him to pay taxes and clean up after his own donkey, despite those things being against his religious beliefs. Jesus again denied ever knowing Tim. 

Tim sure complains a lot about not getting his way at the expense of everyone else. The moral of the story: don't be like Tim.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Is there anything more distasteful than using religion as a cover for lawlessness? A few extremists and apostates should not hold the whole nation hostage.

Martin Luther King used frequently advocated the use of, and used, religion as "a cover for lawlessness."  Other conscientious objectors, many of a religious bent, have done so throughout history. 

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I keep seeing the posts that go along this idea; "When the government allows for people to discriminate because of their religion..." Those who have used a variation of that phrase are not understanding the Supreme Court's decision. 

It was NOT government allowed discrimination on Mr. Phillips part. In fact the Supreme Court opinion said as much. Mr. Phillips said he would sell them other items besides the wedding cake. This on its face shows he was NOT discriminating against anyone or any class of people. Mr. Phillips obviously had other reasons not to make the wedding cake, mainly his religious beliefs (First Amendment Rights). It would be discriminatory if he said he would not sell anything to them, but that was not the case.

How people are twisting the issue to became a new issue more suiting to their argument.

If you want to cry "government allowed discrimination" do not look to Mr. Phillips, but to the Colorado Appellate Court. It was they who allowed severe and gross discrimination against a Christian baker comparing him to Nazi's. It was the Colorado Appellate Court that allowed unwarranted searches at any time at Masterpiece Bakery. It was the Colorado Appellate Court who ruled for the mandatory thought control (my words) when they ordered mandatory therapy for Mr. Phillips employees.

If you want to cry that this SCOTUS decision is setting a precedent for government allowed discrimination based on religion, then you have not read the decision and if you have your cognitive bias has blocked, hindered you from understanding.

 

 

Yep, and let's not let the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission off the hook, either.

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unless I misunderstand the situation, the baker was in peril of losing his livelihood at the hands of the government because he refused to write a message on a cake based on his religious convictions. That appears to me to be an inappropriate use of governmental force, or coercion, if you wish. Do this or lose that. I’m not sure what our disagreement is.

Just maybe a disagreement about the use of the word force, or coercion.

Going back a few posts, you said the question is whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

Without getting into an argument about what force is, I would instead say the question is whether the government can tell Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on a cake while prescribing a penalty for noncompliance.

I do believe a government body can do that.

I do not believe a government can force someone.... anyone... to do something, though.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Ahab
typo

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Martin Luther King used frequently advocated the use of, and used, religion as "a cover for lawlessness."  Other conscientious objectors, many of a religious bent, have done so throughout history.  

No, Martin Luther advocated for greater justice and equality, including to end the kind of segregation advocated by people who support the Colorado baker. Please don't sully his good name.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

No, Martin Luther advocated for greater justice and equality, including to end the kind of segregation advocated by people who support the Colorado baker. Please don't sully his good name.

Oh, come on.  Nobody is advocating segregation.

Mr. Phillips did not discriminate against the customer, he discriminated against the message.  He would have refused to "speak" the message, regardless of who asked him to do it.

-Smac

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, come on.  Nobody is advocating segregation.

Mr. Phillips did not discriminate against the customer, he discriminated against the message.  He would have refused to "speak" the message, regardless of who asked him to do it. 

-Smac

So he was willing to sell a wedding cake to the customer, just as he would with any other customer?

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

No, Martin Luther advocated for greater justice and equality, including to end the kind of segregation advocated by people who support the Colorado baker. Please don't sully his good name.

Exactly my point.  All "lawlessness," as you put it, is not created equal.  The sort of isolated, nonsystemic, episodic, de facto "discrimination" engaged in by Mr. Phillips is altogether different that the formerly common, systemic, de jure discrimination which was so common in parts of the country which courts have now outlawed in the ways they construe the 14th Amendment. Somehow, I doubt that forcing an unwilling provider to violate sincerely-held rights of conscience by providing a nonessential service which is readily available elsewhere is exactly what the Rev. Dr. King had in mind.

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

So he was willing to sell a wedding cake to the customer, just as he would with any other customer?

No, but he was willing to sell anything else (products which do not implicate forcing him to violate his rights to conscience) to that customer, and that's the point which Mr. Phillips' detractors (present company included) are glossing over, conveniently.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

No I do not.  I take Christ at his word as He spoke it.  If the government forces you to do something that you don't want to do, then go the extra mile for the very reason that going the second mile is because you are not compelled by law to do.  You are giving that second mile as a gift to those who compelled you to show kindness towards them.

I don't think Christ was the least bit concerned on whether his neighbors though he was supporting a sinner when he showed kindness towards them.  Christ is telling us to love everyone and show kindness to everyone even when we are compelled to by law.  The way to show that kindness is to do what is required by law and then to go beyond what is required.  Can you imagine the Roman soldier walking that second mile with that Jew asking him "why would you do such a thing".  Can you imagine a baker baking the very best cake they could possibly bake for the gay couple and perhaps giving it to them as a gift?  What would that gay couple now think of Christians?   

Doing more than is asked by the government.  Doing your best, showing kindness when you are not compelled to do so.  As Christ said, it is not hard to show kindness to your friends.  Even the devil does that.  Is not the Spirit whispering to you that this is the better road?

Interesting tactic.

I understand your point and find much with which I agree. Kindness is always a good choice, but not always the best or most appropriate choice when faced with governmental oppression. You may disagree with that.

 I can imagine a number of different reactions the Roman soldier might have had. For example, the one where he went ahead and nailed Him to the cross, for which Jesus asked the Father to forgive. I imagine the restrained reaction of Alma to the slaughter of the believers for a greater purpose, but also the violent reaction of Captain Moroni to the deadly threats against  his people for a righteous purpose, and the justice visited on the wicked before the visit of Jesus.

Of course, losing your livelihood for refusing to bake a cake does not rise to that level of wickedness.  However, perhaps the better question is whether that is really an offense so egregious that it merits condemnation and reprisal. Or whether it is actually an offense at all. We can also disagree on that.

We should also remember that even while showing kindness towards sinners, Jesus also called them to repentance. Failure to repent can have consequences, too.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Exactly my point.  All "lawlessness," as you put it, is not created equal.  The sort of isolated, nonsystemic, episodic, de facto "discrimination" engaged in by Mr. Phillips is altogether different that the formerly common, systemic, de jure discrimination which was so common in parts of the country which courts have now outlawed in the ways they construe the 14th Amendment. Somehow, I doubt that forcing an unwilling provider to violate sincerely-held rights of conscience by providing a nonessential service which is readily available elsewhere is exactly what the Rev. Dr. King had in mind.

What was lawless about Dr. King's movement? Was he seeking a license to do whatever he pleased simply because he was religious? Or was he seeking greater justice and an end to segregation? The kind of segregation that the anti-marriage crowd is trying to bring back into style.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Oh, come on.  Nobody is advocating segregation.

Mr. Phillips did not discriminate against the customer, he discriminated against the message.  He would have refused to "speak" the message, regardless of who asked him to do it. 

-Smac

So he was willing to sell a wedding cake to the customer, just as he would with any other customer?

He was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, but he was willing to sell anything else to that customer, and that's the point which Mr. Phillips' detractors (present company included) are glossing over, conveniently.

So, almost like a separate drinking fountain, in essence. Maybe one that isn't as nice and only pumps warm water?

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

He was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

Thanks,

-Smac

Focus. Was he willing to sell the customer a wedding cake?