- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cake baker loses appeal... Must bake for all people
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:25 am to goatmilker
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:25 am to goatmilker
quote:
He MUST bake now?
Well so much for freedom in the pot smokin state
For liberal progressives, it's only freedom when in conforms with their ideology.
0
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:46 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:So, would the Baker consider it a sin if the marriage wasn't consummated, like, if they were simply getting married because they wanted the tax and estate benefits of marriage? I mean, what if an a-hole wasn't involved? Would that be okay? Does this simply boil down to a presumption of buggery?
Always concerned with the virtue of my virgin a-hole
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:50 am to HubbaBubba
quote:No.
Does this simply boil down to a presumption of buggery?
The baker's end of the equation boils down to religious freedom. PERIOD.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:56 am to NC_Tigah
But in my example, religion isn't involved, is it. Be consistent.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:57 am to HubbaBubba
The biggest irony is Colorado doesn't recognize same sex unions. I assumed they were one of the states that did until I read the Yahoo News article.
So the government is punishing the baker for practicing exactly the same discrimination that the government practices.
So the government is punishing the baker for practicing exactly the same discrimination that the government practices.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 10:58 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
But in my example, religion isn't involved, is it.
quote:So what do you consider questions of sin?
would the Baker consider it a sin if . . .
Science?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:20 am to NC_Tigah
In my example the two are getting married for reasons other than sex. It is purely a financial arrangement. The Baker can't object unless he is being intolerant for reasons other than religion.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:27 am to HubbaBubba
I checked... "involuntary servitude" (except as punishment for a CRIME "duly convicted") is expressly prohibited under the 13th Amendment.
So, since this "panel" does not have the power to enforce criminal laws in the State of Colorado, this order is unconstitutional.
So, since this "panel" does not have the power to enforce criminal laws in the State of Colorado, this order is unconstitutional.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:35 am to udtiger
Trying to stay on point, but appreciate the legal opinion, though. 
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:39 am to HubbaBubba
I bet they wouldn't force a Muslim to serve pork!
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:55 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Not ONCE did Jesus ever say same sex marriage was a sin BUT he did say that divorce was. Mathew 19:9.
No, and no. He gave reasons that divorce was ok.
But you already know that.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:06 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:You used the term "sin".
In my example the two are getting married for reasons other than sex. It is purely a financial arrangement. The Baker can't object unless he is being intolerant for reasons other than religion.
It defines the argument.
Let's assume you didn't use the term though.
Let's likewise assume the Baker believes things which you and I don't.
IAW with his religion, he might believe marriage is a Sacrament which is desecrated if applied to same sex couples. Your assertion that "the Baker can't object unless he is being intolerant for reasons other than religion," seems to overlook that possibility.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:12 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:Why does the baker have to justify his (in)action at all?
The Baker can't object unless he is being intolerant for reasons other than religion.
This post was edited on 6/1/14 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:14 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
I bet they wouldn't force a Muslim to serve pork!
not the issue...
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:15 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:They probably couldn't force him to build that cake.
Wht if the couple wanted a cake in the shape of a man's arse being pummeled by a penis? Should the government be able to force the baker to make a butt sects cake?
From what I understand in this case, the cake was completely like every other cake made for every other wedding. I think it was not until after the bakery found out that it was for a gay wedding that they refused to do the cake at all. It is more like a guy selling lawnmowers refusing to sell one to a couple of "gays" who walk in his shop.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:15 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why does the baker have to justify his (in)action at all?
exactly, injecting religion into the argument adds no value...
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:21 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Jesus said marriage after divorce was adultery.
Jesus gave reasons why one could divorce and remarry.
While God did not intend on people to divorce, it is allowed on ground of sexual immorality. porneia.
Next, if a person who claims to be a Christian marries a person who is not and that person divorces them, the christian and the non christian can marry.
At the same time, those grounds for divorce are the basis of remarriage.
Then there is the case of people who were not christians at when when they married and divorced. But that's not really the topic.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:25 pm to ForeLSU
quote:The First Amendment is at issue.
injecting religion into the argument adds no value.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:25 pm to NC_Tigah
Wonder if he believes in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
I suppose then that the rapist is fully forgiven and he'd bake the couple a cake?
quote:
(28) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, (29) he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
I suppose then that the rapist is fully forgiven and he'd bake the couple a cake?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:25 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
FWIW this "organization" explains their take.
Yeah I'm sure.
quote:
1. When did Jesus ever say homosexuality was a sin?
Well he defines marriage as between one man and one woman. But there are plenty of passages in other books of the word of God that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior.
quote:
2. Do you believe every person remarrying after a "no-fault" (strictly speaking) divorce is just as sinful as gays marrying?
They are certainly guilty of adultery and continuing to live in an adulterous relationship. They are not guilty of homosexuality. Gays who marry are guilty of all of the above.
quote:
3. Aren't people who oppose gay marriage based on biblical teaching inconsistent by not opposing divorce unless adultery is proven?
Yes. I oppose both. In fact I think no fault divorce law has done more societal harm than gay "marriage."
quote:
4. Shouldn't divorce be illegal unless adultery is proven? I mean if we take Jesus at his word.
Yes.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News