- 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 2:20 am to BigJim
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:20 am to BigJim
The point was the blatant hypocrisy shown by those who take this route. No cake baker has likely ever asked a couple if they had premarital sex before agreeing to make their cake.
It isnt meant to make a legal point, just cast doubt on the level of genuine moral conviction here.
I believe they should have the right to do it, but I laugh at them for doing so because I have no reason to take their supposed moral conviction seriously. Its a sad attempt to appear pious.
It isnt meant to make a legal point, just cast doubt on the level of genuine moral conviction here.
I believe they should have the right to do it, but I laugh at them for doing so because I have no reason to take their supposed moral conviction seriously. Its a sad attempt to appear pious.
This post was edited on 6/1/14 at 2:23 am
2
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:30 am to Roger Klarvin
I actually think the whole thing is stupid. Everyone involved. From the couple who want the cake to the idiot who lies and says he can't do it for religious purposes. Again, Jesus never spoke against gays but he certainly spoke against divorce.
But if a community wants to pass a stupid law, and if people want to take advantage of it, and some want to buck it, go for it. You're all stupid.
More important things in life than a stupid cake.
But if a community wants to pass a stupid law, and if people want to take advantage of it, and some want to buck it, go for it. You're all stupid.
More important things in life than a stupid cake.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:33 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
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?
If the town passed an ordinance that all bakers must make arse fricking cakes then so be it. If you don't like it, run for office and change it, close your business or move to the next town.
This is not rocket science
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:37 am to darkhorse
quote:
Same would go for a girl knocked up prior to marriage. Yep, that was a sin. Past.
Jesus said marriage after divorce was adultery. It's is not past sin. Lone cannot oppose gay marriage because it is a sin and not oppose divorce and be intellectually consistent. Both are sins.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 5:21 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:I really couldn't care less about the religious nonsense here. I understand it was pretext to the baker's action, but in the end, this is about civil rights, purely and simply. The unpleasant issue here is that both parties have rights and freedoms. One of the parties will have their rights fettered. So it seems from the court's standpoint, the lean would be to choose the least disruptive of the two options. In this case they did not.
Jesus said marriage after divorce was adultery. It's is not past sin. Lone cannot oppose gay marriage because it is a sin and not oppose divorce and be intellectually consistent. Both are sins.
Normally if an individual seeks service not provided by a business, he simply takes his money elsewhere. Didn't happen in this case. Why?
The logical action would have been for the gay party to simply seek service elsewhere, as they would if the baker was otherwise booked. It is surprising that did not occur. In my mind, it is the the most important detail in the argument.
It is important because the ruling implies that an individual can now specifically seek out, for purpose none other than harassment, a service provider whom the individual expects to offend. That would be terrible law.
Granted, we are (presumably) assuming innocence of purpose on part of the gay party in this instance. But the ruling does not seem to dictate that. In its extreme, the ruling seems to indicate that if OJ Simpson got married, and Ron Goldman's family ran a cake business, he could force them to service his function.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 5:27 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:Except that is not the way the law works, is it.
If the town passed an ordinance that all bakers must make arse fricking cakes then so be it. If you don't like it, run for office and change it, close your business or move to the next town.
If a town passes an ordinance that no resident is allowed possession of a firearm in their home . . . .
. . . . . . This is not rocket science.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 5:33 am to NC_Tigah
Make a wrong comment, bring down the hammer and strong arm a company to fire someone. Free market dictates such, and hey you didn't get arrested, you still have free speech.
Own your own business, speak up for your beliefs, take you to court and force our beliefs on you. Hey, you didn't get arrested, unless you don't agree to do what we say.
Own your own business, speak up for your beliefs, take you to court and force our beliefs on you. Hey, you didn't get arrested, unless you don't agree to do what we say.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 5:39 am to 2close2Gainesville
quote:Mixing metaphors a bit there.
Make a wrong comment, bring down the hammer and strong arm a company to fire someone. Free market dictates such
But to point of the OP, we now apparently allow conscientious objection to the nations service, but not to gay weddings. It is an odd track.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 6:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Mixing metaphors a bit there.
Ya, I suppose. I really don't agree with them denying them a service, but I also don't know all the circumstances, in it.
Seems due process was served, and can't argue with that.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:23 am to darkhorse
Christians are under attack in America. Have less rights than illegal aliens. Sad.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:31 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
No cake baker has likely ever asked a couple if they had premarital sex before agreeing to make their cake.
That's completely irrelevant here. The baker had no part in any premarital sex. The baker was being asked to directly participate in the same sex wedding. There is no inconsistency here.
The baker is not holding potential customers to a moral standard--he's holding HIMSELF to a moral standard. I don't understand why that point is so difficult for liberals to understand. I don't even agree with his view that baking the cake constitutes aiding and abetting. But I understand it.
ETA:
quote:
Its a sad attempt to appear pious
No it isn't. Nobody would know about this if he hadn't been taken to court.
This post was edited on 6/1/14 at 7:33 am
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:34 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Jesus said marriage after divorce was adultery.
The bride being pregnant is not adultery. It doesn't necessarily mean she was married before. She is free to marry if she isn't already in a valid marriage.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:44 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Jesus said marriage after divorce was adultery. It's is not past sin. Lone cannot oppose gay marriage because it is a sin and not oppose divorce and be intellectually consistent. Both are sins.
It might be, but according to Jesus it depends on the circumstances of the divorce. So it's tough for a cake baker to know without knowing intimate personal details. I don't think that would be possible to know in most cases.
A marriage of two people who are living in sin is a good thing. A homosexual "wedding" is always sin.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:54 am to Qwerty
That private business is bs . That would allow discrimination. Business cannot ignore blacks, Jews or gays. No racism , religious discrimination or homophobia.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 7:58 am to Qwerty
quote:
So it's tough for a cake baker to know without knowing intimate personal details. I don't think that would be possible to know in most cases.
True. Of course, that also raises the issue of using a certain status (same sex couple) as a marker. Since that's a protected class under state law, he can't do that.
quote:
A marriage of two people who are living in sin is a good thing.
It fixes the problem.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 8:08 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Which is apparently exactly what is being legally foisted in this instance.
. . . religious discrimination
Posted on 6/1/14 at 8:12 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If the town passed an ordinance that all bakers must make arse fricking cakes then so be it. If you don't like it, run for office and change it, close your business or move to the next town.
I'm picturing the town hall meeting now, and laughing my arse off.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 8:14 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:Those kind of religious faith details aren't terribly relevant. The only question along those lines is whether faith led to a position, or a position led to the faith.
The bride being pregnant is not adultery. It doesn't necessarily mean she was married before. She is free to marry if she isn't already in a valid marriage.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 8:16 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
must make arse fricking cakes
quote:A sort of self-protecting maneuver?
and laughing my arse off
Posted on 6/1/14 at 8:17 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A sort of self-protecting maneuver?
Page 7 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News