Christian baker and transgender cake lawsuit

[atpollard]

does your post have a point?

My point: You posted a sign to @JohnDB that I do not believe belongs to him. John is not from 1934 Alabama, so that is not his sign.
The point behind the point: You are deliberately misrepresenting another Christian. That is not very "fruit of the Spirit".

 

[TinMan]

If you were do die today, are you certain that you would go to heaven?

(Your posts cause me to worry if you really understand the Gospel Message and definition of "Christian". FYI: those are not Christians.)

Yes the Klan is a Christian organization, one that requires members to actually be Christians.

 

[Scott Downey]

Romans 2 exposes the relationship between man and God.​

And v15 does not have to do with salvation. It has to do with the deceitfulness of the heart of man.
Even wicked people know about good and evil, recall Adam and Eve ate from that tree in Eden. Fallen man will excuse themselves to God for their behavior and try to pass the buck onto someone or something else, as did Adam and Eve said to God.

God’s Righteous Judgment​

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your [a]impenitent heart you are [b]treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the [c]Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[TinMan]

... because Bakers are not excluded from the protections of the 14th Amendment (Bakers are free men and not slaves, therefore it is illegal to compel [force] them to perform acts of labor.)

No why should any minority have to boycott a business because they were discriminated against?

 

[TinMan]

My point: You posted a sign to @JohnDB that I do not believe belongs to him. John is not from 1934 Alabama, so that is not his sign.
The point behind the point: You are deliberately misrepresenting another Christian. That is not very "fruit of the Spirit".

did i say or imply it was his? No I didn't. So it seems you are deliberately misrepresenting another Christian

 

[atpollard]

just like when the civil rights act finally passed all those business owners were compelled to perform forced labor and serve black people openly

No, the Colorado baker already serves anyone that comes into his store. He already does not make special cakes for ANY occasion or with ANY message. The couple that sued (and State of Colorado) attempted to COMPEL FORCED LABOR from him, to abrogate the BAKER's freedoms because THEY were a special case and he could refuse other people, but NOT THEM. The SCOTUS ruled that the BAKER had constitutionally protected freedoms that nobody could trample in the name of SPECIAL RIGHTS.

After the Civil Rights Act, White People were not required to drive a black person anywhere that a black person demanded to be driven because Blacks no longer had to sit at the back of the bus. The end of discrimination did not grant SPECIAL RIGHTS that enslaved others. Yet that is what Colorado attempted with the BAKER and why the SCOTUS ruled against the state.

Bakers are still FREE CITIZENS.

 

[atpollard]

did i say or imply it was his?

You said NOTHING.
Yes, you did IMPLY that it was his by posting just the image in response to his post.

 

[TinMan]

No, the Colorado baker already serves anyone that comes into his store.

Except the gay couple ordering that wedding cake.

He already does not make special cakes for ANY occasion or with ANY message.

They weren't asking for any special cake, just a wedding cake, the kind he makes daily for other people.

The couple that sued (and State of Colorado) attempted to COMPEL FORCED LABOR from him, to abrogate the BAKER's freedoms because THEY were a special case and he could refuse other people, but NOT THEM.

doing something you do every day is compelled forced labor?

He couldn't refuse a African American couple
He couldn't refuse an interracial couple
He couldn't refuse someone in a wheelchair getting married
He couldn't refuse a Jewish couple

The SCOTUS ruled that the BAKER had constitutionally protected freedoms that nobody could trample in the name of SPECIAL RIGHTS.

Actually no they didn't rule that at all. Here is the ruling

After the Civil Rights Act, White People were not required to drive a black person anywhere that a black person demanded to be driven because Blacks no longer had to sit at the back of the bus. The end of discrimination did not grant SPECIAL RIGHTS that enslaved others. Yet that is what Colorado attempted with the BAKER and why the SCOTUS ruled against the state.

it granted equal right to everyone...even people you choose to hate

Bakers are still FREE CITIZENS.

and their right to be a bigot ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

 

[atpollard]

No why should any minority have to boycott a business because they were discriminated against?

You really don't understand this freedom thing, do you?
No minority HAS to do anything.
Everyone is free to follow their conscience and do whatever seems right.

• [Buy or don't but ... that is each person's right. Make or don't make ... that is each craftsman's right.]
• No one was discriminated against. The craftsman treated EVERYONE the same ... he made whatever he wanted to make and he declined to make whatever he did not want to make. If the gay couple wanted a Birthday Cake, he would have likely made a birthday cake ... because he wanted to make a birthday cake. If a heterosexual couple wanted a "divorce anniversary" cake, he likely would have declined the order because he did not want to make the cake. There was no anti-Gay discrimination involved. There was a BAKER who baked custom cakes for events/messages he FELT LIKE making a cake for.
  

 

[atpollard]

They weren't asking for any special cake, just a wedding cake, the kind he makes daily for other people.

Wedding cakes are "special". They are all unique and vary by number of tiers and color schemes and decoration themes. If he had a "Wedding cakes to go" table of pre-made cakes, he would have sold them one because they would not have even needed to say who it was for. Wedding cakes are not like that.

 

[bluedragon]

Only Christians can demolish Christianity

Keep believing that troll .........You prove what a falsehood you practice every day.

 

[atpollard]

Actually no they didn't rule that at all. Here is the ruling

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause. Pp. 9–18.
(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil
rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are
protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional
that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and
services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other
members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is
neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic
skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in
his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First
Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere
religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which
was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages per-
formed in the State and before this Court issued United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at
the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not
unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time
also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific
messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant en-
forcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division
concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin-
ing to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or
gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful
consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
Pp. 9–12.
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commis-
sion’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs moti-
vating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol-
ocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impar-
tiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’
case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay mes-
sages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled
against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the re-
quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the
baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases
involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.
The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell oth-
er products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found
Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of

 

[Wrangler]

Check your sources this video has been thoroughly debunked.

You don’t need sources. Imagine that.

 

[JohnDB]

This really is not much different from asking for a gluten free cake in a bakery full of flours containing gluten.

I told everyone...we have gluten flours...some are high gluten. ALL HAVE GLUTEN.
With as much flour flying around in the air there was no possible way that we could produce anything gluten free.

But to compel me to make gluten free cakes or something...that would be insane.

 

[bluedragon]

The issue is not the cake. It is not the cake. The issue is the intention of the Activist. The majority of Gays and Lesbians don't want anything to do with the Activist point of view. They want to live their lives like we want to ......close the doors and practice what their family wishes to practice.....Activists try to tell the world they are all just as devious as the Activists.....

Look at California .....they just voted to squash any hopes of reparations......I thought California would lead the way. No one wants to give money for something this generation had no part of ........

 

[amigo de christo]

where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom
2 Corinthians 3:17

There is freedom . SIN aint freedom . TO sin is not being free . FREEDOM FROM SIN .
Time for the church to learn what FREEDOM really means and meant .
Today , many folks seem to think we free to sin . WHERE the SPIRIT o the LORD IS there is FREEDOM .
cause if we follow the SPIRIT we would not fullfill the lusts of the flesh .
Time for the church to both learn and understand that many have duped the heck out of us with
what they try and imply this FREEDOM really is . FREE FROM SIN .

 

[amigo de christo]

It's a matter of identity and selective hearing.

When I say "Homosexuality is a sin"
The homosexual's identity is so wrapped up their perversion that the ONLY thing they hear and reply with, "You are saying that I am a sin" .

Because at heart, the homosexual is so wrapped up in their sin that it consumes EVERY aspect of their life. They stopped long ago at tolerance now they want acceptance and endorsement. THEY CANT HAVE IT.

Romans 1&2 make it clear that Homosexuality is the result of sin...and a sin in and of itself. That's why you can't have an honest conversation with homosexuals....their overly dramatic and accusatory stance is of course going to be counterproductive.

And what do you suppose is even worse than that .
WHEN christains , those who claim to be christains are IDENTIFYING not with CHRIST but with their sin .
Example . GAYCHRISTAIN .
THERE IS NO SUCH THING . and this is a big AND TOO , WHY WOULD WE EVER ONCE IDENTIFY WITH SIN .
IS Not our identity supposed to be HID IN CHRIST . NOT IN SIN .
SO the next time a church pastor or any christain sayeth , HEY i am a gay christain , MIGHT WANNA LET THEM KNOW THIS .
WE DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH SIN but rather WITH CHRIST .

 

[amigo de christo]

Last time i checked we are supposed to be DEAD TO SIN , NOT IDENTIFYING WITH SIN .
The churches have FAILED THE MASSES .

 

[amigo de christo]

This world no lovey ol amigo . but then it aint supposed to .

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes the Klan is a Christian organization, one that requires members to actually be Christians.

They are no more christain than the devil is . Just cause they try and claim to be .
REMEMBER , christains do not IDENTIFY with SIN . ANY SIN . DO KEEP THAT IN MIND .
The klan is wicked , they may try and identify as christain , HECK a lot of false ones do .
BUT they aint . Not at all .
PS christains dont identify with sin , the klan does .
SInce we are on that reminder , Same goes with ANY SIN BUDDY .
there is no such thing as GAY CHRISTIAIN either .
We are dead to sin , NOT IDENDTIFYING WITH SIN . DO take care to LEARN THAT TOO .