Colorado cake company loses gay-cake lawsuit

Oh, I see. So the failure doesn't end with logic.

You're lying. I've never talked about their wedding. Why lie?

I've mentioned refusing them when it pertained to the topic.










​

 

I agree with the ruling as a company is not a religion thus it is subject to the laws of the state

 

I'm curious where this "against their religious beliefs" line lies.

Just the clergy?

Because we've already seen business owners have to fight to get out of paying for abortions and morning after pills.

 

The baker makes cakes. They asked for a cake. He refused them a cake because he thinks what they do in bed is icky. He's a bigot. And a law-breaker. He's trying to excuse his actions by claiming his faith will be terminally damaged by selling them a cake because they have cooties.

 

You don't seem to have a clue what the definition of bigot is.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do those against the Christians always have to make things up to support their argument ?

He never claimed any of that.

So odd.

 

funny thing is, at one time a guy baking a cake would of been considered gay.... this is the 21 century....

.

 

Please explain why you think my condensed version is inaccurate..

 

That is the biased perspective, the objective perspective is both made a claim that their rights were being infringed upon thus the litigation to settle the matter. In the end it was found that the bakery was acting in contrary to state law, and as the bakery is a company and not a religion it is thus subject the the laws of the state.

Oh the irony.

Tyranny is 239 years of gays being subjugated by the majority while during the same time religion has enjoyed great freedom.

 

How many stonings have happened in the US lately? We'd probably see one in that instance.

 

Probably.​

​

 

I have found a pastor claiming that paying federal taxes is a form of idol worship of the state. He says it is against God's teaching to file, and he has found a couple of and his pews are filling up very quickly full of converts and we are all very sincere in our faith-based duty. No government has a right to force us to do that which our pastor pronounces a sincerely felt objection.

 

I dunno where the line lies. But I know that it's well established that the clergy doesn't have to perform religious ceremonies for people that do not adhere to the priests religion. I.e a Catholic priest is well within their rights to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for someone who has been divorced because it conflicts with church doctrine.

As to business owners fighting to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, that's a whole other matter that is still being litigated. Hobby Lobby appears to have not settled anything.

 

I'll let your completely false claim do that for me:

"He's trying to excuse his actions by claiming his faith will be terminally damaged by selling them a cake because they have cooties."


You either have his statement... or you're making things up.

It's OK.. everyone on that side seems to.

 

So clergy.

The state has already banned one pastor from a prison because he wouldn't promise not to mention homosexuality as sin... despite the prisoners requesting him.

Difference being state-owned property.

For now.

 

That is your interpretation of why he refused to make them the cake. All it does is reflect you and how you think...not how the baker thinks. If you want to know why he didn't bake it, then instead of putting words into his mouth, why not ask him before making assumptions based on your own character and feelings.

 

Well if homosexuals can ignore the First Amendment and impose their own beliefs on Christians, then why can't the pastor ignore the Federal government when it comes to the IRS?

 

Gays cannot impose their beliefs upon Christians as that is impossible. Christians have been trying to impose their beliefs upon me for decades and have failed every time as such an imposition is an exercise in futility. Our beliefs are our own and no one can force us to believe in a way that is contrary to our values. We can be made to follow laws that we disagree with however else be subject to litigation, fines, and even imprisonment.

 

So if you believe it represents what he said where is the falsity?

- - - Updated - - -

When did the refusal to sell baked goods to gays enter the Christian scripture? I missed it.

 

You're opinions are wrong. I am of the opinion you are female.
You were also of the opinion that homosexuality was mentioned as an abomination in the new testament. You are wrong.

And do whatever the heck you want. Just don't interfere with whatever the heck anyone else wants to do. As long as no one's rights are infringed upon.
So I'm not shoving anything down your throat, ma'am.

 

Tax exempt non profits registered as a religion. A special tax status non profit applied for.

 

Where has anyone imposed their belief on a christian?
A business for profit isn't considered christian and afforded the freedoms of religion.

 

Which means what exactly? Modern courts have a history of forgetting which branch of the law they represent. For those who still aren't clear, it's supposed to be the judicial branch. Not the legislative branch.

Boy, you really don't get it, do you? You have no concept of conscientious objection to something. But, of course, I'm sure you would feel differently if the law was forcing you to do something that conflicted with your own moral code.

Your question is worded backwards here. Are you even seriously trying to make a point or are you just being a troll?

Did you even watch the video? That's exactly what Steven Crowder did. And they turned him down over and over again. Proving once and for all that this is not about "equal rights" at all but merely about forcing Christians to violate their religion. Because you people don't seem to care too much when Muslims do the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

^Precisely.

 

Wow, you totally missed the point I was making. Why can't anyone get out of paying their taxes who finds a pastor to do his dirty work? The first amendment was never intended as an exemption card that any theist can throw out, whenever they were caught dodging their statutory duties to the state or community. That is true of tax law, environmental law, labor law, fire code, consumer protection statutes, OSHA regulations and civil rights laws. If legislatures see fit to pass a civil rights statute obliging a business to do 'x', then they are doing the imposing, not homosexuals who ask a business to treat them exactly like they would a straight customer and provide basically the same service.

What you are doing if you carve out a special exemption for theists who have the backing of their clerics or a nice little quote from their holy book, to be exempt from civil law, is that you are treating those who do not have that special relationship with God ( atheists and agnostic) as second class citizens because they cannot get that exemption and that is inconsistent with the due process clause.

You have built into your law a canyon-sized loophole through which any one can drive, and there is no containing or controlling which part of law gets this black hole, including tax law. Its not just for Christians, its not just about gays, and it sure won't be boxed around just cakes and flower arrangements.

 

It probably isn't. Unfortunately, not all gays live in major urban centers or state capitals. Some of them live in Mayberry, and if the only Mayberry bakery won't serve their needs, they get to travel to Mount Pilot 40 miles to the north with an even smaller population, an only one bakery in just as conservative a part of the county and await another bigoted refusal.


They should not have to travel three blocks and neither should an interracial couple wanting service from a hotel, or Muslem couple wanting their check cashed at the local bank. These couples should not have to live and travel only in major metropolitan areas where they are fortunate to have liberal business owners. Businesses have to figure out how to stay in compliance with laws and regulations that pertain to their industryor they should close shop. That is their job and responsibility.

 

But the homosexuals are suing the baker for their beliefs...wouldn't that be an imposition on the bakers beliefs?