- 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: If you force a Christian bakery to bake gay wedding cakes, it'll start a precedent
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:17 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:17 pm to Kentucker
quote:
You're leaving something out. All of your examples choose not to sell a product. The baker in question can choose not to sell wedding cakes.
Can he choose not to stock toppers with two grooms or two brides?
Can he choose what messages he writes on a cake?
1
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:17 pm to Kentucker
So you're ok with a Christian bakery having a Satanist demand service for a cake that says something to the effect of "Hail Satan" in writing on it? If the Baker feels that is diametrically opposed to their sense of faith, your contention is either they make the damned cake or be punished legally? WTF is that about? At some point the religious liberties of the business owner need to be protected. A person of faith should not be required to perform an act of blasphemy when demanded to keep their business in good standing with the law. Screw anyone who can't agree with something so fundamental! That was NEVER the intent of the Constitution nor its amendments.
This post was edited on 6/17/18 at 7:45 am
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:20 pm to Dale51
quote:
Wrong. The SC does not have the power to determine what constitutes the "proper" exercise of one's religion.
It certainly does. "Honor killings" by Muslims are not supported by the SC in the US. Nor should they be. Neither are circumscisions of women, thank goodness.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:24 pm to Dale51
quote:
Duty??...really??? So you think we should still have slavery.
The SC does not interpret the Constitution in support of slavery.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:24 pm to Kentucker
quote:what about cakes in poor taste? What if I want you to bake me a cake that has an explicit message about YOUR daughter. Should you have the right to refuse such a request or is legal action necessary bc you refused my request?!?
It certainly does. "Honor killings" by Muslims are not supported by the SC in the US. Nor should they be. Neither are circumscisions of women, thank goodness.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:26 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The right to practice your religion as you understand it is the issue.
Again, the SC will have to determine the extent to which anyone can do this.
quote:
How do you interpret that part of the 1st?
Neither you or I will be doing the interpreting. That the responsibility of the SC and both of us will have to abide by their interpretation.
Can't answer the questions?
You expect the SC to nullify the 1st, just because?
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:27 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Can he choose not to stock toppers with two grooms or two brides?
That's for the SC to decide.
quote:
Can he choose what messages he writes on a cake?
He can follow community standards.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:29 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
what about cakes in poor taste? What if I want you to bake me a cake that has an explicit message about YOUR daughter. Should you have the right to refuse such a request or is legal action necessary bc you refused my request?!?
You're being lazy. I've already addressed the issue of indecency.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:31 pm to Kentucker
quote:
It certainly does. "Honor killings" by Muslims are not supported by the SC in the US. Nor should they be. Neither are circumscisions of women, thank goodness.
Ummmm...killing is already against the law.
So is forced mutilation. Are you seriously trying to equate the two? Thats a weak line of augmentation.
A personal act of conscience has nothing in kind with performing physical actions on another person.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:33 pm to Dale51
quote:
Can't answer the questions?
Saying it's up to the SC is an answer.
quote:
You expect the SC to nullify the 1st, just because?
You don't seem to understand the purpose of the SC. It's single purpose is to interpret the Constitution as times change and our society matures. So far it's been the glue that's held our society together.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:35 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The SC does not interpret the Constitution in support of slavery.
You miss the point.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:
It's single purpose is to interpret the Constitution as times change and our society matures.
Wrong.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:39 pm to Dale51
quote:
Ummmm...killing is already against the law. So is forced mutilation.
So you agree that there should be limits to "the free exercise of religion?"
quote:
A personal act of conscience has nothing in kind with performing physical actions on another person.
Well, then we agree. A baker's personal act of conscience should not allow him to deny a gay couple by physically refusing to bake their cake.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:40 pm to Dale51
quote:
You miss the point.
Hardly.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:40 pm to Dale51
quote:
Wrong
Wrong.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:46 pm to Kentucker
quote:
So you agree that there should be limits to "the free exercise of religion?"
You're trying to blur the lines between the personal practice of religion and the imposition of it on another person.
quote:
A baker's personal act of conscience should not allow him to deny a gay couple by physically refusing to bake their cake.
Thats some convoluted gibberish you got there!
What...exactly is the physical action that is being performed on the person by not selling them a product?
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:49 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Hardly.
The point is that the SC did uphold slavery, and your position seems to be that position should not have been questioned because "it's everyone's duty" to not question any position the SC has already ruled on.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:50 pm to Dale51
As the King of Gibberish, you would know gibberish.
You don't think eating cake is a physical act?
You don't think eating cake is a physical act?
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:52 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Wrong.
Double wrong.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:53 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Can he choose not to stock toppers with two grooms or two brides?
quote:
That's for the SC to decide.
That's some central planning nonsense. The free market works. If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding, find someone who will. You don't have a right to buy a cake from a baker.
quote:
He can follow community standards.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News