The case had nothing to do with the baker making cakes for people getting remarried. You just pulled that out of your power bottom didn't you? The administrative judge decided that since the baker was a business and not a church, they had no right to discriminate base on moral or religious grounds and subsequently lost the case.
LOCKED - U-S-A!! U-S-A!!
- Thread starter QuaoarsKing
- Start date
- Status
There is a huge overlap (not 100%, because nothing ever is) in denominations that disallow gay marriage and those that disallow divorce/remarriage. But you never, ever hear about a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a couple that has been married before. If people really only wanted to make cakes for marriages allowed by their denomination, this "controversy" would have been raging for centuries, not just now.
Could it be that the main reason restaurants/bakeries decide to make a stand is a disingenuous cash grab? Sure, that pizza place in Indiana may have gotten some backlash, but they also pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from right-wing Christians. Chick-fil-A made huge profits from their anti-gay marriage stand. Etc. Etc. Etc.
And to answer your questions, there are verses all over the Bible about how marriage is permanent. As a lazy Cathpiscopal, I've never bothered to memorize where they are, but I believe Paul says as much repeatedly in his letters, and there's something in Matthew about a man permanently cleaving to his wife (oops!), etc.
I am personally calling that baker and all like him insincere, not trying to claim that was the judgment of the Court.
You're so reaching with this.
Both restaurant examples you cite were not intentional revelations by the businesses. The Indiana place was ambushed by a reporter looking to make a story and had no idea of the outpouring of support they would receive, and the CFA stuff brewed up when Dan Cathy was interviewed a couple of times over a period of weeks. That easily would've been handled differently if intentional, and they ended up reversing most of their stance on the business side despite windfall profits.
Both restaurant examples you cite were not intentional revelations by the businesses. The Indiana place was ambushed by a reporter looking to make a story and had no idea of the outpouring of support they would receive, and the CFA stuff brewed up when Dan Cathy was interviewed a couple of times over a period of weeks. That easily would've been handled differently if intentional, and they ended up reversing most of their stance on the business side despite windfall profits.
Chick-Fil-A makes money from me because the food is great, their service is phenomenal, and they get my order right every time. I do not care what their owner does with his money.
Gays deserve the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. Let them get married and listen to their ***** bitching all the time and they may not be gay after that.
<shrugs> I think the Indiana pizzeria knew they'd make more money than they lost, and I think Chick-fil-A knew what it was doing. (And by kinda reversing lately, they're double dipping! Geniu$!)
Hell, if I owned a restaurant I might try it myself, pocket all the cash, and then admit the truth. Maybe that would tear down the gullibility we see on the right so often.
Nor do I, but people all over the country we were waiting hours in line for Chick-fil-a back on "Freedom Appreciation Day" or whatever they called it.</shrugs>
I'm with you man. And it's the same thing with gays in the military. I mean, in the military you gotta shower with a bunch of other guys. As a straight guy, I don't want to be in a shower and see a gay guy with his toned musculature after he just put in a day of hard work, with his skin glistening with sweat. I don't want to think about him coming up behind me and doing things to me, with his strong yet gentle hands embracing me. I only want to be in there with other straight guys like myself.
So everything is cool now. Right?
Police are the villans of the community, Confederate flags are coming down, Gay marriage is legal, the ACA subsidies are intact, free trade is fast tracked, and we are spending more on entitlements than ever, we are kicking Hamilton off the 10 for Bea Arthur for all we know, and borders are open to all.
So can I now feel, as a tax paying white straight southern male, that I'm no longer a villain? Do I look better now in the eyes of the minority ( race, gender, LGBT, nationality, religion )community? Or are there other things I am now expected to now accept? Please list other reasons I'm part of the problem below. Please divide up by race, LGBT, gender, and foreign nationality.
If everyone is now ok with each other and everything is beautiful, just say we're cool now.
Police are the villans of the community, Confederate flags are coming down, Gay marriage is legal, the ACA subsidies are intact, free trade is fast tracked, and we are spending more on entitlements than ever, we are kicking Hamilton off the 10 for Bea Arthur for all we know, and borders are open to all.
So can I now feel, as a tax paying white straight southern male, that I'm no longer a villain? Do I look better now in the eyes of the minority ( race, gender, LGBT, nationality, religion )community? Or are there other things I am now expected to now accept? Please list other reasons I'm part of the problem below. Please divide up by race, LGBT, gender, and foreign nationality.
If everyone is now ok with each other and everything is beautiful, just say we're cool now.
Last edited:
I have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. I have no things to work out. My conscience is clear. I'm happily married to my wife (female) with two wonderful kids. So you went to a gay wedding and got all emotional. Good for you.
Rabbi,
There are now no laws against marrying your computer of cell phone either. Just take a picture of your computer with your cell phone and go down to your local courthouse and ask of a marriage license so the "three" can be wed.
In fact, I LOVE my truck. And since there is now no precedence against it, then I can now marry it.
After all, there is no way two males can produce a fetus and no way that two females can produce a fetus, and I dang sure cant produce o fetus with my truck's tail pipe, that makes me and my truck EQUAL in the eyes of the Justice system.
Yaaaayyyy
So I got a little immature as you say. So be it. I'm just sick and tired of having my nose rubbed in it about this celebrity or that person is gay. So what. Every time I read paper,internet, watch TV or listen to radio I hear about it. If people want to be gay thats their perogative. Why do we have to know about it!
I'll be so glad when football season starts so all the goofy and worthless posts will be gone!!!
Denominations <> Bible. Yes, Paul said that it was better to not remarry, but remarrying was not called a sin.
I'm not saying this won't happen cause I guess you never know. However, if a denomination does come out as blessing this allowing this whatever you want to call it, then that church is not following the bible. The bible is clear this is a sin and I don't know of any other the sin the church endorses.
With that said, I'm fine with gay marriage being legal. As a Christian I don't expect to have to uphold non-Christians values/beliefs so I don't think anyone should be required to uphold mine.
The only things left are the elimination of the U. S. Flag, our national borders, and the national anthem; banning the Christian religion and any idea of absolute right and wrong; and the creation of a place where everyone has the exact same opportunity and income regardless of effort or intellect. And all with the true elite left in charge. Utopia for some, Hell for others. Put me in the second group.
Some denominations have and will twist the Bible just like SCOTUS has twisted the constitution this week.
Other than the fact that the American people are now given more freedom with this decision, I am excited to see one less distraction of a topic for our presidential candidates to discuss. They absolutely love to talk about things like this that amount to nothing rather than tackling the issues that our country really needs to deal with.
/ yes you read that right. If you are for small government, then you should be happy with this decision by the Supreme Court. It lets more people do what they want to do even if you don't like it.
/ yes you read that right. If you are for small government, then you should be happy with this decision by the Supreme Court. It lets more people do what they want to do even if you don't like it.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you can tell who is sincere and who is insincere about their faith by reading a news article? I have only heard on One who can read the minds and hearts of men and I have a suspicion you are not Him.
Actually no. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I am familiar with the arguments. Governments can regulate marriages and discriminate against different types of people as long as they have a legitimate governmental purpose or "rational basis" for the discrimination. The states that banned gay marriage could not articulate a single governmental purpose or rational basis for preventing two people of the same sex from getting married while allowing two people of the opposite sex to get married.
The Supreme Court has actually ruled in favor of regulations regarding polygamy. They are the same as the regulations regarding not allowing people who are getting married to be drunk or of a certain age. Almost a century ago the statistics and realities were that polygamy led to abuse. More specifically, a single man was allowed to marry multiple women, but the multiple women had no such right. They could become a "sister wife" to numerous people that they were completely unfamiliar with. If a man got tired of one wife, he could simply marry another, leaving the other wife with the children and no real legal recourse. Now, there's legitimate arguments for all of these alleged reasons. However, you have to realize how low the bar is for the government to establish a rational basis for any discriminatory conduct. It's an extremely low bar which is almost impossible not to achieve. Most of the time if the court begins an opinion by saying that they are going to impose a "rational basis" test to a law, the government is going to win.
In short, with regard to polygamy, there was a governmental purpose, preventing people from being abused, for the regulations associated with polygamy. There is no rational basis for the discriminations based on sex.
The Supreme Court has actually ruled in favor of regulations regarding polygamy. They are the same as the regulations regarding not allowing people who are getting married to be drunk or of a certain age. Almost a century ago the statistics and realities were that polygamy led to abuse. More specifically, a single man was allowed to marry multiple women, but the multiple women had no such right. They could become a "sister wife" to numerous people that they were completely unfamiliar with. If a man got tired of one wife, he could simply marry another, leaving the other wife with the children and no real legal recourse. Now, there's legitimate arguments for all of these alleged reasons. However, you have to realize how low the bar is for the government to establish a rational basis for any discriminatory conduct. It's an extremely low bar which is almost impossible not to achieve. Most of the time if the court begins an opinion by saying that they are going to impose a "rational basis" test to a law, the government is going to win.
In short, with regard to polygamy, there was a governmental purpose, preventing people from being abused, for the regulations associated with polygamy. There is no rational basis for the discriminations based on sex.
Is it wrong that it is the B in that acronym bothers me a little? Well maybe now the Q too...The rest do their own thing and I'm OK with that. But the B and maybe the Q, kinda muddy the waters a little bit.
Like Jews, there is no central authority among Muslims. A gay Muslim couple can get married if they can find an imam who will do it, and there are a few (not a lot) out there who will do it.
Apparently American Muslims oppose gay marriage, but only 51-42 (cite), which is a higher % of support than Evangelical Protestants, so who knows. Perhaps in 20 years most mosques over here will do gay marriages while most in the Middle East still won't. Interesting survey either way.
- Status