RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?

RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?

Yes

60% (12)

40% (8)

Not sure

0% (0)

Total Votes : 20

(last vote on : 9/26/2017 12:06:55 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/21/2017 7:05:38 AM)
that's an interesting question jv---but you want to assert that Christians should never resort to the law to defend their faith practice? in the same vein but perhaps more important than Christian bakers: "ACLU Sues Michigan Over Allowing Religious Adoption Organizations to Turn Away Same-Sex Couples" quote: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state of Michigan Wednesday over a 2015 law that allows private adoption agencies which receive state contracts and taxpayer funds to “use religious criteria to screen prospective foster and adoptive parents for children in the foster care system and to turn away qualified families on the basis of sexual orientation.” They claim that allowing religious adoption agencies to screen out applicants based on sexual orientation “harms vulnerable children by denying them access to loving families that they desperately need and violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.” The ACLU seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ensuring that “private child placing agencies that are contracted by the State and funded with tax dollars to provide adoption and foster care services to children, do not turn away same-sex couples or other potentially qualified families based on religious eligibility criteria.” “Decisions about adoption and foster family placements should be made based on the needs of the child, not the religious beliefs of the agency,” Jay Kaplan, staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan’s Nancy Katz and Margo Dichtemiller LGBT Project said in a statement. “There are 13,000 children in Michigan’s child welfare system. Allowing agencies to turn away loving, qualified families based on religious criteria creates fewer families for children, reducing their chances of being placed in a suitable family, or any family at all.” However, proponents of the law, signed by Governor Rick Snyder (R), argue that religious-based adoption groups face a threat to their religious freedom and would close if they were forced to go against their beliefs and place children with same-sex couples. Gov. Snyder cited a letter he received from Bethany Christian Services arguing that requiring religious groups to place children with gay parents requires them "to abandon their faith or abandon the children they serve." "That is an untenable choice, one that inevitably results in fewer resources available to recruit families and place children in loving homes," they wrote. "Focus on the Family strongly supports the religious freedom rights of all businesses and organizations, including faith-based adoption agencies," Jim Daly, president of the Christian organization, Focus on the Family commented Wednesday. "Not only have the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Trinity Lutheran decisions reaffirmed long-standing principles by which government should respect the free exercise rights of organizations that seek to operate according to their deeply held beliefs, but such respect enables entities like faith-based adoption agencies to fill a critical need in society," he said. Michigan is one of just seven states with laws exempting religious adoption providers from facilitating adoptions for same-sex couples. The others states are Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) is attempting to pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2017, which would withhold 15 percent of federal funds for child welfare programs from states that refuse to contract with agencies for their religious beliefs. “There is no good reason why any of these care providers should be disqualified from working with their government to serve America’s families simply because of their deeply-rooted religious beliefs,” Kelly said in a statement introducing the legislation in April. “When it comes to helping kids and making families stronger, all service providers – religious or otherwise – should have a seat at the table,” he emphasized. “No provider should ever be forced to violate their faith in order to help give each kid a loving and caring family.” https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/09/20/aclu-sues-michigan-over-allowing-religious-adoption-organizations-to-turn-away-samesex-couples-n2384335 yeah---lets pressure the church into stopping a good work. biting noses to spite faces always works.

JVoV -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/21/2017 9:11:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 that's an interesting question jv---but you want to assert that Christians should never resort to the law to defend their faith practice? in the same vein but perhaps more important than Christian bakers: "ACLU Sues Michigan Over Allowing Religious Adoption Organizations to Turn Away Same-Sex Couples" quote: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state of Michigan Wednesday over a 2015 law that allows private adoption agencies which receive state contracts and taxpayer funds to “use religious criteria to screen prospective foster and adoptive parents for children in the foster care system and to turn away qualified families on the basis of sexual orientation.” They claim that allowing religious adoption agencies to screen out applicants based on sexual orientation “harms vulnerable children by denying them access to loving families that they desperately need and violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.” The ACLU seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ensuring that “private child placing agencies that are contracted by the State and funded with tax dollars to provide adoption and foster care services to children, do not turn away same-sex couples or other potentially qualified families based on religious eligibility criteria.” “Decisions about adoption and foster family placements should be made based on the needs of the child, not the religious beliefs of the agency,” Jay Kaplan, staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan’s Nancy Katz and Margo Dichtemiller LGBT Project said in a statement. “There are 13,000 children in Michigan’s child welfare system. Allowing agencies to turn away loving, qualified families based on religious criteria creates fewer families for children, reducing their chances of being placed in a suitable family, or any family at all.” However, proponents of the law, signed by Governor Rick Snyder (R), argue that religious-based adoption groups face a threat to their religious freedom and would close if they were forced to go against their beliefs and place children with same-sex couples. Gov. Snyder cited a letter he received from Bethany Christian Services arguing that requiring religious groups to place children with gay parents requires them "to abandon their faith or abandon the children they serve." "That is an untenable choice, one that inevitably results in fewer resources available to recruit families and place children in loving homes," they wrote. "Focus on the Family strongly supports the religious freedom rights of all businesses and organizations, including faith-based adoption agencies," Jim Daly, president of the Christian organization, Focus on the Family commented Wednesday. "Not only have the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Trinity Lutheran decisions reaffirmed long-standing principles by which government should respect the free exercise rights of organizations that seek to operate according to their deeply held beliefs, but such respect enables entities like faith-based adoption agencies to fill a critical need in society," he said. Michigan is one of just seven states with laws exempting religious adoption providers from facilitating adoptions for same-sex couples. The others states are Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) is attempting to pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2017, which would withhold 15 percent of federal funds for child welfare programs from states that refuse to contract with agencies for their religious beliefs. “There is no good reason why any of these care providers should be disqualified from working with their government to serve America’s families simply because of their deeply-rooted religious beliefs,” Kelly said in a statement introducing the legislation in April. “When it comes to helping kids and making families stronger, all service providers – religious or otherwise – should have a seat at the table,” he emphasized. “No provider should ever be forced to violate their faith in order to help give each kid a loving and caring family.” https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/09/20/aclu-sues-michigan-over-allowing-religious-adoption-organizations-to-turn-away-samesex-couples-n2384335 yeah---lets pressure the church into stopping a good work. biting noses to spite faces always works. Yeah, that's another storm brewing. I don't know enough about how adoption agencies are ran, or how the children are sent to which. But if there is no suitable way for a gay couple in Michigan to legally adopt, then that has to change. And a gay friendly church or organization needs to step up. Crowdsourcing can do wonders. Honestly, I think the State has a definite interest in providing families for as many children as they can, responsibly. Vet them all like they're refugees, regardless of sexuality. But the State can not allow religious tests on anyone trying to adopt, nor can it allow any religious beliefs to determine whether or not a couple is worthy of adopting a child.

MercTech -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/21/2017 7:01:31 PM)
If one can be compelled to provide services for something you find objectionable, then how can you refuse to make... Stars and Bars Cake Antifa Flag Cake ISIS flag cake KKK Bleeding Cross cake Vagina Cake Penis Cake Dead Puppy Cake Pedo Bear Cake Either one has a right to refuse service one finds objectionable or one is compelled to provide service to all requesting service.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 12:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Maybe not hate, but intolerance that is rooted in ignorance is objectively bad for society. And placing free speech over anti-discrimination empowers those who DO discriminate based on hate. It also takes away power of the state to compel one to act in a given way. I agree that intolerance, iff rooted in ignorance is sometimes objectively bad for society. Using the power of the state to compel someone to violate their principles is one hell of a heavy hand, one I'd be hesitant to use myself except under the most dire circumstances, and anything involving a cake doesn't qualify in my book. There is no such thing as anti-discrimination. There is only the power to force people to discriminate in a direction they're otherwise disinclined to, and at the barrel of a gun, no less. First they came for the christian bakers, and I said nothing, because I'm neither christian nor a baker.... The state isn't forcing him to bake the cake. He is free to refuse to do so. What he can't do is run a business that openly practices discrimination. So if his beliefs mean that much to him, he should simply accept that he isn't suited to running a business in this society. It's really amazing how the right has turned this issue completely around as if the baker is the victim here. So okay... here's a question-- why can't businesses refuse to serve black people? If I run a restaurant and I see a black person, using your logic, I should be able to tell him to leave, right? There are plenty of restaurants in town... he can go to one of those. So everyone wins-- he gets to eat somewhere that accepts his kind of people, and I get to keep my fucked up beliefs. I can even dress it up in religion if you want... black people are the sons of Ham, therefore unclean. It's in the Bible, don't you know? Now defend my right to refuse service to black people... otherwise we'll end up with tyranny. You're right of course that the state isn't likely to force anyone to bake a cake. Said state will, however deprive someone of their property, and in the extreme, their liberty and life. That's what I meant by force. A similar case in Oregon in 2015 involving a lesbian couple netted a $135000 USD award against the bakers. Private business = private problem. I think you should have the right to refuse service to black people, or white people, or any other people you'd prefer not to do business with, for any reason, or for no reason at all. This is the sort of thing that is much better dealt with by Yelp ® than the long arm of the law. Public service = public issue. I don't have a problem, as a public servant (technically a servant of Elizabeth II) with being bound to refuse no customer. I agree with you that it's wrong, and even objectively bad for society, to refuse service due to race or a number of other involuntary traits. I just don't think it's a good use of public funds (and by extension, force of arms) to punish someone for doing so, particularly when public opinion and the free market can exert tremendous pressure on their own. Of course there was a time when only the avant-garde chose to regard negroes as fully human, and restaurant owners in more than a few neighbourhoods would lose only negro business for shutting them out. I sometimes wish history would pick up the pace a little myself, but I can't shake the idea that one cannot be compelled to perform a moral act, only punished for an immoral one, as the compulsion itself negates the necessary agency for a moral decision. Aside from anything else, using force (which is all the state can do) to decide the matter one way or the other is not an argument. A man compelled is not a man convinced. Who would you have bake you a cake? I think the list of things that are objectively bad for society is rather long, and bound to grow; I have no doubt that my grandchildren will have certain facts in hand much better than we do with respect to, say, the nutritional merits of certain foods, or the proven negative effects of smartphones, etc. I just hope that it will be voluntary freedom of (dis)association, social ostracism and market forces that push people away from big macs, sodas and tumblr feeds, and not laws banning their sale. I really hope that the list of things one can be punished for doesn't grow at nearly the same rate. Hobbes' Leviathan doesn't come cheap; best to keep it small and spend it wisely.

heavyblinker -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 1:45:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre You're right of course that the state isn't likely to force anyone to bake a cake. Said state will, however deprive someone of their property, and in the extreme, their liberty and life. That's what I meant by force. A similar case in Oregon in 2015 involving a lesbian couple netted a $135000 USD award against the bakers. Private business = private problem. I think you should have the right to refuse service to black people, or white people, or any other people you'd prefer not to do business with, for any reason, or for no reason at all. This is the sort of thing that is much better dealt with by Yelp ® than the long arm of the law. Public service = public issue. I don't have a problem, as a public servant (technically a servant of Elizabeth II) with being bound to refuse no customer. I agree with you that it's wrong, and even objectively bad for society, to refuse service due to race or a number of other involuntary traits. I just don't think it's a good use of public funds (and by extension, force of arms) to punish someone for doing so, particularly when public opinion and the free market can exert tremendous pressure on their own. Of course there was a time when only the avant-garde chose to regard negroes as fully human, and restaurant owners in more than a few neighbourhoods would lose only negro business for shutting them out. I sometimes wish history would pick up the pace a little myself, but I can't shake the idea that one cannot be compelled to perform a moral act, only punished for an immoral one, as the compulsion itself negates the necessary agency for a moral decision. Aside from anything else, using force (which is all the state can do) to decide the matter one way or the other is not an argument. A man compelled is not a man convinced. Who would you have bake you a cake? I think the list of things that are objectively bad for society is rather long, and bound to grow; I have no doubt that my grandchildren will have certain facts in hand much better than we do with respect to, say, the nutritional merits of certain foods, or the proven negative effects of smartphones, etc. I just hope that it will be voluntary freedom of (dis)association, social ostracism and market forces that push people away from big macs, sodas and tumblr feeds, and not laws banning their sale. I really hope that the list of things one can be punished for doesn't grow at nearly the same rate. Hobbes' Leviathan doesn't come cheap; best to keep it small and spend it wisely. The free market only works to punish wrongdoing so long as the masses are just, but the masses are not naturally just. This is why we have laws. https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1 People can frown on racism today and demand it tomorrow. Laws remind us not to fall into barbarism... even if some people don't understand why barbarism is wrong. And it isn't about the cake... it has never been about the cake.

Greta75 -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 1:51:28 AM)
FR quote: Now defend my right to refuse service to black people... otherwise we'll end up with tyranny. Race is something that is universally known that it is not controllable, so it makes sense to ban discrimination against race. But homosexuality, till date there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is not controllable. My country infact is still waiting for actual scientific legit evidence before they are gonna legalise gay marriage. Our late Founder has challenged the LGBT community to provide him with scientific facts on this issue. And none has come up to be credible studies. What I mean not controllable? You cannot control that you are born with a vagina. You cannot control that you are born black. Hell that was that full black and black couple who gave birth to an albino with blue eyes. That albino also cannot choose to be black despite having black parents. You can't choose your colour. But you can control who you wish to fuck. It's a choice. And you can control if you want to look like a male or a female. It's a choice. Regardless if you were born male or female. It's a choice though plastic surgery or the clothes you choose. That is when religious belief fall in. If you subscribe to a certain religion, they may believe it is not okay to have sex with certain people. I see homosexuality as a choice. Just like pedophilia is a choice. Just like incest is a choice. No matter what, I find that homosexual people are disgusted towards pedophilia and incest, have feel like those people should have self-control are being hypocritical because it applies the precise same thing to their own self-chosen orientation. So you know there are child predators listings. What if a someone refuses to sell cake to a pedophile because they feel it is immoral for an adult to have sex with minors? You think the courts gonna fine this poor baker $135k over it?

heavyblinker -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 1:58:00 AM)
How does the nature of homosexuality have any bearing on whether or not it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals? And homosexuality isn't like pedophilia FFS... that argument is about as valid as when radical feminists claim that all heterosexual sex is rape.

Greta75 -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 2:03:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker How does the nature of homosexuality have any bearing on whether or not it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals? And homosexuality isn't like pedophilia FFS... that argument is about as valid as when radical feminists claim that all heterosexual sex is rape. Because it falls into, religious beliefs. Ironically, most religion discriminate against other religions. Never really race mentioned except for the grey area of "jews" but the problem with jews is there is no differentiating word for their race and religion. Like can someone be of jew race and not subscribe to judaism? Yes! How do we address a jew that don't believe in judaism? No differentiation. It's essentially, refusing business to people who do not share their beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with that. You see consumers boycotting Ivanka collection because they don't like her father. It works both ways.

heavyblinker -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 2:05:55 AM)
Your argument was that it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because science hasn't proven that they don't choose that lifestyle. But it isn't okay to discriminate against blacks because they don't choose their skin color. So why does the element of choice mean it's okay to discriminate?

Greta75 -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 2:16:24 AM)
It boils down to, do we want to respect religious beliefs or not? And then which religious beliefs is reasonable to respect? 1) If a religion encourages discrimination base on gender or colour of skin, things they cannot help. Like their God told them, it would be like going to hell event for associating with such people, the government needs to come in and say, sorry, we can't respect those beliefs. 2) But if it's things that is a personal choice like homosexuality, and a religion teaches them not to associate or have anythign to do with people who made these choices. I think if we respect their religion, we don't bother them and let them do their thing. That's how multiculturalism works in my country BTW. We allow religions to have some of their discrimination, and leave them alone in their own world. Because discrimination is part and parcel of some religions. I think we need to accept that if we want to respect people's religious beliefs. The discrimination taught in those religions comes with it. Or we say, all religious beliefs deserves no respect if it is not inline with our beliefs. And screw them and bulldoze over them. Like what happened to the baker in this situation.

bounty44 -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 4:21:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It boils down to, do we want to respect religious beliefs or not? greta, since godlessness is a large proponent of leftism, right there is a partial answer. very much at the core of the problem is a mixture of militant homosexuality and virulent anti-Christianity.

heavyblinker -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 6:08:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It boils down to, do we want to respect religious beliefs or not? greta, since godlessness is a large proponent of leftism, right there is a partial answer. very much at the core of the problem is a mixture of militant homosexuality and virulent anti-Christianity. LOL 'militant homosexuality'... you mean the totally horrific prospect that gay people not be treated as subhuman outcasts? And it isn't anti-Christian so much as anti- all of the bullshit that the RWNJs like to pretend is what God wants. They aren't even churches anymore... they're political cults.

Awareness -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 7:08:06 AM)
I see heavyblinker is off the meds again.

Real0ne -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/26/2017 7:22:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It boils down to, do we want to respect religious beliefs or not? greta, since godlessness is a large proponent of leftism, right there is a partial answer. very much at the core of the problem is a mixture of militant homosexuality and virulent anti-Christianity. Greta needs to work on and refine her philosophy a bit, well, maybe lot. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5077102

Awareness -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/27/2017 7:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 you might enjoy this: https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/09/14/liberals-surrender-to-the-awesome-power-of-conservative-sexiness-n2380807 The best birth control out there is a MAGA hat or a Trump Tshirt. See, this is the problem. Young people need EFFECTIVE, CORRECT advice about birth control, not stupidity from ill-informed idiots. Wearing a MAGA hat or a Trump tshirt will not stop you getting pregnant. And lord knows there's certainly enough women fucking men who wear them. Loony Leftist women really are a minority.

Awareness -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/27/2017 7:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker No you just creep me out... as in, when I read your bullshit, it makes me wonder what sorts of horrible things you could be capable of. If you truly believe that then it would seem to be prudent not to poke the beast with the stick of argument. Probably true. I'm actually already pretty embarrassed by how horrible this thread is, but it's not like the discussion is interesting so flame wars are pretty much unavoidable. Anyways, onto the blocklist he goes. I guess we can add cowardice to your list of woes. How on earth you cope with being you is a question only therapy can answer.

Lucylastic -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/27/2017 7:17:06 PM)
whoosh.

Awareness -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/27/2017 7:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Great. I expect to never hear a reply from you to me again. You can ensure it never happens by putting him on hide, quit fucking whining and just do it bloody drama llamas Try to mind your own fucking business for once in your life. She can't. She is the very picture of the local gossip. Honestly, I think if this board didn't exist, she would just curl up and die.

Awareness -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/27/2017 7:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic whoosh. You must be used to that sound by now - you seem to spend your days in a state of perpetual confusion.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (10/10/2017 12:01:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker The free market only works to punish wrongdoing so long as the masses are just, but the masses are not naturally just. This is why we have laws. https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1 People can frown on racism today and demand it tomorrow. Laws remind us not to fall into barbarism... even if some people don't understand why barbarism is wrong. And it isn't about the cake... it has never been about the cake. Please remember that barbarism and laws are not themselves opposites. The stubborn hill from barbarism up which we clothed and shod apes amble never ends, and I think each generation in turn needs to learn ethics, morals and philosophy, whether they're governed by laws written by geniuses and heroes of 1776, or by laws written by Nurembergers in 1935. I read everything on the page you linked to. I think that apart from being a double violation of the first and most important amendment, it's a matter of shame that a people should attempt to outsource moral progress to legislation. It has the stench of both utopianism and infantilism, and I'd be hesitant to link to it myself; I think pointing out whether or not something is legal is not an argument for whether or not something is good. Fantasize with me a moment, HB, and pretend that Bob holds attitudes, opinions, misapprehensions and prejudices that are perfectly congruent with the perpetrators of the injustices as laid out in the examples on the page you linked to. Pointing out to Bob the law, and where he trespasses on it, may or may not alter his behaviour, but it's unlikely to change his mind. Philosophy is the only means of robustly changing his mind, and when it does so it's often contagious. Thatt is the opposite of barbarism. Please consider also that IF Bob is beyond the means of peaceful persuasion, AND him not be persuaded towards righteousness in this regard will do a GREAT harm to someone, THEN by all means send all the king's horses, and all his men. I just think we're better off keeping such proscriptions exceedingly rare, given the costs.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 15 [16]

Spam Policy

0.078125