Colorado Baker back in the News (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Same baker that was sued for not making a gay wedding cake which went all the way to the Supreme Court
===================================================

The owner of a specialty cakes shop in Lakewood, Colo., who first made national headlines for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, was back in court on Monday.

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner Jack Phillips was sued by a gay couple in 2012 after citing religious beliefs as his reason for not making their wedding cake. In 2018 his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices granted him a partial victory.

On Monday, the Christian baker went on trial in another lawsuit, this time involving Denver-based attorney Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who said that the baker didn’t sell her a cake because she was transgender.

Scardina attempted to order a cake on the same day in 2017 when the Supreme Court justices announced they would hear Phillips appeal on the same-sex wedding case. He refused, so she took matters to court.

Scardina initially filed a complaint with the state in 2018. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that she had been discriminated against.

Phillips then sued the state for harassment in federal court..............

In her complaint Scardina claimed that Phillips refused to sell her a birthday cake “because she is transgender, despite repeatedly advertising that they would sell birthday cakes to the general public, including LGBT individuals.”

The cake she wanted to order was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition. But when she called the shop, she was told that they didn’t make cakes for “sex changes.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s website says that Phillips will “happily create custom cakes for anyone,” but he won’t “create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.”

Philips has maintained that he won’t create cakes to celebrate events that he, as a Christian, doesn’t agree with.

On Monday, during a virtual trial, Phillips’ attorney Sean Gates argued that his refusal to bake the cake was simply about its message, and not about discriminating against Scardina.

“The message would be that he agrees that a gender transition is something to be celebrated,” Gates said, according to The Associated Press............

Colorado cake baker back in court over alleged anti-LGBTQ discrimination (msn.com)

 

[DaveXA]

They are not the same in the eyes of the Christian church. If you commit adultery, you commit a sin of the flesh. If you are homosexual, you are "intrinsically disordered from natural law", thus an abomination.

That's why the stigma, punishment, harassment, discrimination and hate has always been more severe if you're homosexual than if you commit adultery. One is and understandable sin of the flesh and the other is an abomination.

I've never believed that even though I've heard some preachers teach it. Not everyone in the Church agrees on that.

 

[SystemShock]

If you'd take your focus off homosexuality for a minute, let's ask a more pertinent question, you find me a verse where it says adultery is not a sin or abomination, or where it's not detested by Yaweh/Jesus. They're both sins according to Scripture. Nowhere does it state specifically that adultery is more or less worse than homosexuality.

And anyway, I don't believe homosexuality in and of itself is a sin.

@coldseat already gave a great response, so I'll just add, I never said adultery is not a sin.

 

[Yoweigh]

I think the initial premise is flawed. Baking a cake and selling it in no way facilitates whatever perceived sin.

I agree, but isn't that the argument used by many of those who support the baker? That's who my thought experiment is aimed at.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Isn't adultery one of the 10 commandments? Same old story tho. People pick and choose. Use their personal hate and hide behind religion . Prove me wrong...

 

[samiam5211]

Religion always requires a certain amount of faith, and you either have it or you don’t.

That should really be the beginning and end of all debate between believers and non believers.

You aren’t going to talk someone out of their faith with logic and reason. Faith isn’t logical.

You aren’t going to talk someone without faith into believing. They don’t believe things, they know things. Experience may cause them to believe one day, but you’re not going to talk them into believing.

 

[DaveXA]

Isn't adultery one of the 10 commandments? Same old story tho. People pick and choose. Use their personal hate and hide behind religion . Prove me wrong...

Pick and choose indeed. All kinds of people harbor hatred. It's not unique to a certain group of people.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Homosexuality and adultery aren't the same.. Homosexuality is still an abomination. Adultery, on the other hand, is a watered down sin.

Both would fall under so-called religious values. If someone is claiming religious values, it applies to ALL religious values

Religion always requires a certain amount of faith, and you either have it or you don’t.

That should really be the beginning and end of all debate between believers and non believers.

You aren’t going to talk someone out of their faith with logic and reason. Faith isn’t logical.

You aren’t going to talk someone without faith into believing. They don’t believe things, they know things. Experience may cause them to believe one day, but you’re not going to talk them into believing.

But we aren't talking about religion per se. We're talking about strongly held religious beliefs. That is the defense that has been used to discriminate against gay people. In this instance, the baker sited strongly held religious beliefs. The sin of adultery, no matter how lesser a sin it may be, is still (or should be) part of those strongly held religious beliefs. So if someone claims that to be the reason for discriminating but will sell to someone who is an adulterer, then the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is simply bullshirt.

Religious beliefs are an all or nothing prospect. You don't get to pick and choose which sins are going to be part of your religious beliefs. It will be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it will for these people claiming these strongly held religious beliefs to inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[samiam5211]

Both would fall under so-called religious values. If someone is claiming religious values, it applies to ALL religious values

But we aren't talking about religion per se. We're talking about strongly held religious beliefs. That is the defense that has been used to discriminate against gay people. In this instance, the baker sited strongly held religious beliefs. The sin of adultery, no matter how lesser a sin it may be, is still (or should be) part of those strongly held religious beliefs. So if someone claims that to be the reason for discriminating but will sell to someone who is an adulterer, then the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is simply bullshirt.

Religious beliefs are an all or nothing prospect. You don't get to pick and choose which sins are going to be part of your religious beliefs. It will be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it will for these people claiming these strongly held religious beliefs to inherit the kingdom of God.

On that topic..,

To me, the government should treat all deeply held beliefs with the same amount of reverence. I think churches should be able to legally campaign for candidates, but they should pay taxes like any corporation.

A perfect example of the way it should be is something Obama changed in the naturalization process.

Someone who naturalizes has to take the same oath of allegiance. People could request a waiver of any combination of parts A, B, or C below, but only if violated the principles of their religion. Obama changed religion to “deeply held belief”.

To me this is what the idea of separation of church and state is. It protects all religions without giving religion a special protection.

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

 

[samiam5211]

On the topic of the baker,

I don’t believe that if you are doing something for money, your beliefs should allow you to discriminate against consumers.

If it is possible that baking a cake could violate your beliefs, then you should find some other way to monetize your abilities.


There should be a movement to have straight people order cakes from the baker for their gay friends wedding, then make sure the gay wedding cake is plastered all over social media.

After a few dozen of these, the bigoted baker would either realize Jesus is ok with gay cakes, or he would be too paranoid to stay in business.

 

[DaveXA]

On the topic of the baker,

I don’t believe that if you are doing something for money, your beliefs should allow you to discriminate against consumers.

If it is possible that baking a cake could violate your beliefs, then you should find some other way to monetize your abilities.


There should be a movement to have straight people order cakes from the baker for their gay friends wedding, then make sure the gay wedding cake is plastered all over social media.

After a few dozen of these, the bigoted baker would either realize Jesus is ok with gay cakes, or he would be too paranoid to stay in business.

That's all just overcomplicating the issue. It's simple. If someone wants to provide a good or service to the public, they can create whatever they want. If someone wants wants the business owner to create or sell something they're not comfortable selling, the business owner has a right to refuse to make it. Anything held out to the public for sale is available to any customers willing to pay for it.

What the owner cannot to is treat a certain group of customers differently than any other customer. If the owner doesn't want to service a certain group, then they shouldn't be doing business with the public.

 

[samiam5211]

That's all just overcomplicating the issue. It's simple. If someone wants to provide a good or service to the public, they can create whatever they want. If someone wants wants the business owner to create or sell something they're not comfortable selling, the business owner has a right to refuse to make it. Anything held out to the public for sale is available to any customers willing to pay for it.

What the owner cannot to is treat a certain group of customers differently than any other customer. If the owner doesn't want to service a certain group, then they shouldn't be doing business with the public.

I think that is true if, for example, someone asked for a penis shaped cake.

I think that if a mother came in and asked for a pink cake with blue Icing for her twin son and daughters birthday, it should be treated the same as someone asking to buy a pink cake with blue icing to celebrate the anniversary of their transition.

 

[DaveXA]

I think that is true if, for example, someone asked for a penis shaped cake.

I think that if a mother came in and asked for a pink cake with blue Icing for her twin son and daughters birthday, it should be treated the same as someone asking to buy a pink cake with blue icing to celebrate the anniversary of their transition.

Exactly. It's the same cake. The use and reasons for the cake are irrelevant.

If the owner cares about how it's used, he's in the wrong profession.

 

[SystemShock]

Both would fall under so-called religious values. If someone is claiming religious values, it applies to ALL religious values

Sure, but there are degrees, just like murder and manslaughter: they both fall under the penal code (religious values) and indicate someone ended up dead by your hand (the sin), but there are different penalties for each.

But we aren't talking about religion per se. We're talking about strongly held religious beliefs. That is the defense that has been used to discriminate against gay people. In this instance, the baker sited strongly held religious beliefs. The sin of adultery, no matter how lesser a sin it may be, is still (or should be) part of those strongly held religious beliefs. So if someone claims that to be the reason for discriminating but will sell to someone who is an adulterer, then the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is simply bullshirt.

You can't have strongly held religious beliefs without a religion. And again, not all sins are equal; even within the 10 commandments, not all commandments have equal weight: if you don't believe in Yahweh (1-3), you'll never be forgiven.

Religious beliefs are an all or nothing prospect. You don't get to pick and choose which sins are going to be part of your religious beliefs.

Religions have dogmas, doctrines to follow. And people make those as they see fit. In that, people choose what is considered a transgression, and how grave the transgression is.

 

[SystemShock]

To me, the government should treat all deeply held beliefs with the same amount of reverence.

Reverence? No.

Don't establish a religion, don't prohibit the exercise of, unless exercising results in breaking the law. That's all.

 

[DaveXA]

Reverence? No.

Don't establish a religion, don't prohibit the exercise of, unless exercising results in breaking the law. That's all.

That works.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Sure, but there are degrees, just like murder and manslaughter: they both fall under the penal code (religious values) and indicate someone ended up dead by your hand (the sin), but there are different penalties for each.


You can't have strongly held religious beliefs without a religion. And again, not all sins are equal; even within the 10 commandments, not all commandments have equal weight: if you don't believe in Yahweh (1-3), you'll never be forgiven.



Religions have dogmas, doctrines to follow. And people make those as they see fit. In that, people choose what is considered a transgression, and how grave the transgression is.

System, either you have a strongly held religious belief or you don't. It's that simple. Either you are sincere in believing the tenets of your religion or you are lying so that you can discriminate. You either believe that a sin is a sin or you don't. A small sin is like a small lie. In the end, the small sin is still a sin and a small lie is still a lie.

The man or woman upstairs doesn't care about how much of a sin we think a sin is.

 

[DaveXA]

System, either you have a strongly held religious belief or you don't. It's that simple. Either you are sincere in believing the tenets of your religion or you are lying so that you can discriminate. You either believe that a sin is a sin or you don't. A small sin is like a small lie. In the end, the small sin is still a sin and a small lie is still a lie.

The man or woman upstairs doesn't care about how much of a sin we think a sin is.

I don't think it's either/or. You can have strongly held beliefs and those beliefs may or may not have much to do with religion. People can be dogmatic about a lot of things. It's pretty common. It's even tending to more the political than the religious these days.

Trumpism is a good example of that. Trump has an almost god-like sway over his more ardent supporters. It's actually disturbing. When he waved that Bible he knows next to nothing about, it makes me want to violate my own faith and punch him out. It's crazy how rabid those idiots were at the Capitol. I'm actually surprised it wasn't worse.

 

[SystemShock]

System, either you have a strongly held religious belief or you don't. It's that simple. Either you are sincere in believing the tenets of your religion or you are lying so that you can discriminate. You either believe that a sin is a sin or you don't. A small sin is like a small lie. In the end, the small sin is still a sin and a small lie is still a lie.

The man or woman upstairs doesn't care about how much of a sin we think a sin is.

But the man upstairs (and it is a man in Abrahamic religions) does care.

You are making an argument that strongly held religious beliefs means all sins should have equal gravity, but they don't. In Christianity, for example, Yahweh will not forgive you if you don't believe in him, no matter how righteous you are, but will forgive adultery, theft, etc. In the case of homosexuality, it is not only a sin, but an aberration, something that goes against the laws of nature, whereas adultery isn't, it is just a sin of the flesh.

Or let's consider Islam: apostasy and theft are both sins against Allah. If you steal, they cut off your hand, your sin is considered paid, and you still have a shot at the 72 virgins; if you are an apostate, they kill you, and you don't get your 72 virgins. Those are the tenets. By your logic, you are arguing that apostasy and theft should be both punishable by death and no virgins or by cutting one's hand.

And lies, sure, a lie is a lie, i.e., a false statement, but not all lies are created equal. Me telling you I met Nelson Mandela when I never met him is not going to have the same effect on you as me being a doctor and telling you you have cancer when you don't.