quote:

That was a reference to the free speech part of the First Amendment. But it was startling , shocking even , that the majority gave no mention at all of the Constitution's second principle of religious protection, the right to the "free exercise" of religion. That is where the battle lines are being drawn by liberal and left-wing factions in America seeking to force religious individuals to embrace same-sex marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What 'free exercise'? There is obviously nothing involved in the baking that is against the baker's religion.

So define exactly where the point is in the process that is any different because of the customers involved, and how that interferes with the free expression of the baker's religion.

I'm pretty sure that if he could have done that, this case would have been decided much differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What 'free exercise'? There is obviously nothing involved in the baking that is against the baker's religion.

So define exactly where the point is in the process that is any different because of the customers involved, and how that interferes with the free expression of the baker's religion.

I'm pretty sure that if he could have done that, this case would have been decided much differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What 'free exercise'? There is obviously nothing involved in the baking that is against the baker's religion.

So define exactly where the point is in the process that is any different because of the customers involved, and how that interferes with the free expression of the baker's religion.

I'm pretty sure that if he could have done that, this case would have been decided much differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

That would all be great if I was suing you for not marrying me.

Now let's see the verse about what you can do with your digital camera.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirVindico

As I read the following article, I find myself amazed with how the courts overstepped their bounds, yet again!

‘The Ruling Is Wrong’ Says Baker After Losing Appeal Of Wedding Cake Case To Gay Couple

Here is the basis for my argument. The bakery is one private business that is not providing a monopolized vital service. It is not a government agency. It is a single bakery that opted to refuse service, which should be their right. Therefore, this couple cannot prove the denial of anything vital, for I would bet the couple purchased a cake from another bakery. Moreover, I am not lauding or lambasting the actions of the bakery or its business model. I am simply stating that the courts have once again encroached on a private business’s choice of how they choose to run their business, when there are multitudes of other businesses that may provide the same product. In fact, I am quite sure there are bakeries that would welcome this couple with open arms. If not, it seems there is an opportunity for someone to fill the niche. Yet, it seems the court implies that the owner of this bakery is a slave without any choices when it regards the current cause celeb. Additionally, I am viewing this as nothing more than extortion by way of the court system.

It makes me wonder if there was a role reversal, where it is a “gay” bakery, because of their religious beliefs, refuses to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple. Would the courts come to the same conclusion? From my perspective, I would think not!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirVindico

As I read the following article, I find myself amazed with how the courts overstepped their bounds, yet again!

‘The Ruling Is Wrong’ Says Baker After Losing Appeal Of Wedding Cake Case To Gay Couple

Here is the basis for my argument. The bakery is one private business that is not providing a monopolized vital service. It is not a government agency. It is a single bakery that opted to refuse service, which should be their right. Therefore, this couple cannot prove the denial of anything vital, for I would bet the couple purchased a cake from another bakery. Moreover, I am not lauding or lambasting the actions of the bakery or its business model. I am simply stating that the courts have once again encroached on a private business’s choice of how they choose to run their business, when there are multitudes of other businesses that may provide the same product. In fact, I am quite sure there are bakeries that would welcome this couple with open arms. If not, it seems there is an opportunity for someone to fill the niche. Yet, it seems the court implies that the owner of this bakery is a slave without any choices when it regards the current cause celeb. Additionally, I am viewing this as nothing more than extortion by way of the court system.

It makes me wonder if there was a role reversal, where it is a “gay” bakery, because of their religious beliefs, refuses to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple. Would the courts come to the same conclusion? From my perspective, I would think not!

I'm sure there were gay bakeries in the decades before gay marriage was legalize in the United States of America. How many of them refused service, even though their personal religious/political viewpoints were they should have the same right to marry those they love? Very little to any. That these pseudo christians are complaining states a distinct lack of understanding the law and respect for fellow US Citizens.

The business lost on the grounds that it is a public venue. The owner and employees must serve all legitimate customers without discrimination. Which means if you dont like blacks, and blacks walk in to your establishment, your serving them like any other. In the state to which this bakery found itself had laws that applied to those of sexual orientation. Therefore, while the owners of the bakery were christian, their product/service is not. If a heterosexual couple can buy a wedding cake, so can the gay couple. If the bakery or other companies dislike this....

.....tough!

That is the nature of the business world at the moment. If they dislike the prospect of serving gay people, maybe they should close their business down. One's civil rights, in this case, 'freedom of religion' stop, where another's begins. That all persons are equal under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
there is no shortage of them
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (Read More...)

The Bible says that marriage is intended solely between one man and woman, and this is backed up by the verses Genesis 1:27-28, Matthew 19:4-6, and Malachi 2:15.

The first one read: "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds.'"


The second says: "'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.'"

Lastly, the verse from Malachi says: "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth."

God deems homosexuality as a sin, and this is indicated in Romans 1:26-27 which says:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:18-18 warns people:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."