T
Tomdstone
Guest
I suppose a bakery could bake a cake, but not put a figure of the couple on the cake?
- Status
J
Joegrane
Guest
A bakery in Oregon was fined $100,000 for not baking a cake for a “gay wedding”.
csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake
Remember Catholic Social Services in Washington DC was forced out of the adoption business when local government gave the right to adopt. The gay activists were not just looking for rights, they were looking to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
( It used to be unethical to perform science experiments on kids )
The gay Houston mayor went after pastors who spoke against her new law allowing people who think they are of the other sex to use public bathrooms of the opposite sex.
There are plenty of reports of Christian pastors in other Western countries being harassed or even arrested by the “gay speech police”
What’s going to happen to Catholic caterers, wedding photographers, … Will there be a conscience exemption, or will they be forced to comply?
csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake
Remember Catholic Social Services in Washington DC was forced out of the adoption business when local government gave the right to adopt. The gay activists were not just looking for rights, they were looking to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
( It used to be unethical to perform science experiments on kids )
The gay Houston mayor went after pastors who spoke against her new law allowing people who think they are of the other sex to use public bathrooms of the opposite sex.
There are plenty of reports of Christian pastors in other Western countries being harassed or even arrested by the “gay speech police”
Originally Posted by Terra Rosarum
What’s going to happen to Catholic caterers, wedding photographers, … Will there be a conscience exemption, or will they be forced to comply?
J
Joegrane
Guest
We could really use an entire discussion on the apologetic angle of this. A defensive approach will not cut it against the aggressive gay activists. We will need ways to counter the views of the gay activists.
Note: I use “gay activists” because there should be no disrespect towards those who have a homosexual orientation. Science may one day determine that a medical problem is involved in most cases of confused sexual orientation. We compassionately aid people with medical problems, not disrespect them.
I’m active in a couple of sports related discussion groups where the gay marriage issue has come up. We need to prepare Christians to respond in these situations as well as the work place, etc.
You can read a couple of my posts at the following links. Consider that these groups are rough-n-tumble environments with profanity, etc. A more gentle approach will be needed for most environments.
I’d be grateful for feedback on how I could make a more effective presentation.
igglephans.com/iggboard/showpost.php?p=1814239&postcount=94
igglephans.com/iggboard/showthread.php?p=1814157#post1814157
Note: I use “gay activists” because there should be no disrespect towards those who have a homosexual orientation. Science may one day determine that a medical problem is involved in most cases of confused sexual orientation. We compassionately aid people with medical problems, not disrespect them.
I’m active in a couple of sports related discussion groups where the gay marriage issue has come up. We need to prepare Christians to respond in these situations as well as the work place, etc.
You can read a couple of my posts at the following links. Consider that these groups are rough-n-tumble environments with profanity, etc. A more gentle approach will be needed for most environments.
I’d be grateful for feedback on how I could make a more effective presentation.
igglephans.com/iggboard/showpost.php?p=1814239&postcount=94
igglephans.com/iggboard/showthread.php?p=1814157#post1814157
L
LaSalle
Guest
What exactly is morally wrong with providing cakes to SSM if I don’t personally support SSM? I would sell cakes to pagans/Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc when they get married so what’s the difference?
Are we going a bit overboard with this?
Are we going a bit overboard with this?
S
SilverLight
Guest
I think it has gone overboard a little yes. Baking a cake fot a SSM wedding is doing one thing only. Providing them with a cake and that’s it. It’s not saying you accept their beliefs it’s just a cake!
S
St_Francis
Guest
And what is wrong with saying bye to a company that refuses services without suing them for $100,000?
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
In some cases, the bakers offered to provide a cake if the same sex couples would decorate it themselves. Maybe most people are missing the point here. Hearing on TV these days “we are so happy we can finally commit to someone we love for the rest of our lives”, they don’t need an official piece of paper to do that. No one was bothering them in civil unions. In fact, at least more than half of hetero couples are living in common law arrangements. They are also cohabiting with the persons they love.
So what is the push to redefine marriage to the extent it means nothing if it can include anything? The social engineering agenda hidden in the background wants to destroy it so society becomes more modular and easier to control. Forcing others to bake cakes, taking pictures, providing flowers for “weddings” means that everyone (except in place like Turkey and Russia) will all have to accept homosexuality as normal, or be slapped with draconian fines and be vilified in the public arena.
Making SSM official means that children will be taught in schools the new dogma. Anything that disagrees with this ideology, like the Bible, will be eventually banned. If a person believes Scripture, he or she in conscience cannot be expected to support homosexuality in any way, like actively participating in their events like 'marriage". Similarly, Moslems and Jews can opt out of handling pork. This ant-discrimination malarkey has gone too far and is infringing on people’s rights. There is no right to force someone to bake a cake for you. Anytime marriage businesses get personally involved in their products, they are not just cakes, picture or flowers but a moral statement. In fact, anything we do is.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
My daughter has wanted to be a teacher ever since she was in kindergarten. For years she studied hard, put in long hours, and just ten days ago graduated summa cum laude and also received her teaching credential.
And now she is condemned to a situation where she either has to go against her conscience by working in a public school where she can earn a decent salary or barely scrape by working in a private school.
She has already accepted a position in a Catholic school but is desperately trying to figure out how she will be able to afford paying rent. She would like to have a roommate, but getting one means the other woman might bring home overnight guests.
I get so upset when I see Facebook friends and relatives with that rainbow splashed across their faces. They have no idea what this has done to my beautiful daughter.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Or who would start a bakery that makes wedding cakes, or provide flowers or take pictures for weddings? Actually being inducted into this lifestyle might be worse. It is SO HARD to push back against popular culture with kids. I did assume that Catholic schools pay teachers well or at least as much as the public system, oh well…My daughter has wanted to be a teacher ever since she was in kindergarten. For years she studied hard, put in long hours, and just ten days ago graduated summa cum laude and also received her teaching credential.
And now she is condemned to a situation where she either has to go against her conscience by working in a public school where she can earn a decent salary or barely scrape by working in a private school.
She has already accepted a position in a Catholic school but is desperately trying to figure out how she will be able to afford paying rent. She would like to have a roommate, but getting one means the other woman might bring home overnight guests.
I get so upset when I see Facebook friends and relatives with that rainbow splashed across their faces. They have no idea what this has done to my beautiful daughter.
Maybe she can do some private tutoring to gain some extra cash. Good luck!!!
A
asd72
Guest
The situation that I am aware of was a baker that was asked to provide a cake with a picture of Burt and Ernie, with “support gay marriage” written on it.
But even if it was a regular wedding cake, the difference between providing this, or other services for a same sex marriage ceremony versus a marriages of couples from other religions, is that with the SSM it could be seen by some as in some way supporting or validating SSM.
There is nothing sinful about people of other religions marrying.
I have to say I support this baker.
S
steve_b
Guest
the Supreme court rulings of 72 legalizing abortion, and 2015 legalizing SSM , only makes door #2 wider and the road made easier to enter it. And the fools all cheer and celebrate
Mt 7: 3 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Jesus]
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
What the court did, is declare that they found within the constitution, the right for same sex people to have a marriage with the same social status as a man and a women. While that may be what some folks want, to say that it exists in the constitution, while at the same time denying that the constitution protects the fundamental right to life of the unborn, truly strains the credibility of the court to where folks like me simple see it as broken.
So what do we do if our supreme court is broken and is simply making rulings that make no sense based on what their job is supposed to be.
I believe the solution is in the legislation. The court has said that if congress ever passes a bill that says that the unborn are people, then immediately, they would be given the right to life. So the courts have handed the decision back to the legislature in effect.
The same think is true regarding marriage. All the court did was say that states can’t deny same sex couples from marrying and that they must recognize marriages from other states. But they did not redefine marriage. So all that has to happen is for congress to define marriage as being between a man and a women. That can still happen.
Let’s say it did? Let’s say that tomorrow marriage is redefined by congress to be between a man and a women. Can someone explain to me what rights will have been taken away from same sex couples? I am assuming that civil unions still allow for all legal rights between same sex couples. So what rights would they have lost? The answer is none.
The issue is that they want the same social staus, the same acceptance as married people. And the court has found that this right to social acceptance can be found in the constitution - but the right to life for the unborn (since congress has not declared themto be people) is NOT found in the constitution.
So what do we do if our supreme court is broken and is simply making rulings that make no sense based on what their job is supposed to be.
I believe the solution is in the legislation. The court has said that if congress ever passes a bill that says that the unborn are people, then immediately, they would be given the right to life. So the courts have handed the decision back to the legislature in effect.
The same think is true regarding marriage. All the court did was say that states can’t deny same sex couples from marrying and that they must recognize marriages from other states. But they did not redefine marriage. So all that has to happen is for congress to define marriage as being between a man and a women. That can still happen.
Let’s say it did? Let’s say that tomorrow marriage is redefined by congress to be between a man and a women. Can someone explain to me what rights will have been taken away from same sex couples? I am assuming that civil unions still allow for all legal rights between same sex couples. So what rights would they have lost? The answer is none.
The issue is that they want the same social staus, the same acceptance as married people. And the court has found that this right to social acceptance can be found in the constitution - but the right to life for the unborn (since congress has not declared themto be people) is NOT found in the constitution.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I do not agree with your legal analysis. But your last point is exactly right and why the preceding is mistaken. The SC, as currently constituted, will never permit the federal government to define marriage legislatively. They would strike down any such legislation as unconstitutional. They might back down if a constitutional amendment were passed if only because that would require such an overwhelming rejection of “SSM”. But that is not likely for the forseeable future.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
You think?? Goodness me. Calm down! Has anyone here from the US thought to ask someone from Canada how they handle situations you bring up? Bakeries, florists, school teachers, etc. Our good friends in Canada have been living peacefully with married people of the same gender for 10 years! The RCC has survived; florists still exist, as do bakers. The country is doing quite well, I believe. Canadians, we would love to learn from you. And a Happy Canada Day to all.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Apparently you missed my previous post on the subject. Did you ever hear of the courageous Bill Whatcott? You can search online the history of his harassment and persecution just for speaking the truth in Canada, which was actually declared illegal:
"In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint." http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/"
"In Toronto there lives a man named Bill Whatcott. During the last two decades or so, he has spent much of his time traveling around Canada, waving protest signs at gay-pride parades and Planned Parenthood clinics, agitating for the criminalization of homosexual acts and abortion, and distributing fliers packed with incendiary language about gays and graphic images of aborted fetuses. In 2010 the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined him $17,500 for distributing “hateful” materials; an appeals court overturned the ruling, whereupon the province’s Human Rights Commission appealed the case to the Canadian Supreme Court. Now the Court has ruled, and it’s an icy day for freedom in the Great White North.
One of the many striking aspects of the Court’s decision is the insistence that any judge, jury, or commission seeking to determine whether a speech act crosses the threshold of being punishable by law must not look to the speaker’s intent but must, rather, make an assessment of the potential of that speech act for causing hate…Another key detail is that truth is no defense: it is impermissible even to state demonstrable facts if, in the authorities’ estimation, those facts might spark enmity toward a group. Yet another point worth mentioning is that any judgment rendered in such matters must, the Court posited, be arrived at in an “objective” manner." frontpagemag.com/2013/bru…r-free-speech/
One might ask how and why this escalated to such a twisted, monstrous state of affairs. Natural law is self-evident. Unnatural law like the phony Aryan race theory has to be implemented by force. Truth doesn’t need a whip to promote itself but lies need propagandists. An eminent Boston physician was fired recently not because of incompetence but telling the truth, the clear and present dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and practices. Already in the US businesses have been targeted, harassed and even ruined because they want to conduct their public life in conjunction with their religious values.
The supreme irony of utopian liberalism is the assumption that human beings if they just act according to their whims and desires are essentially good. The Founding Fathers of the US had the Christian view that human nature is fallen and must be restrained in society. Free speech was not seen as a threat to the fabric of society but of course actions are prosecutable. Contrast that with the thought police of the Communists, Nazis and now the Homo-fascists.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
When DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was found to be unconstitutional, the reason that was given by judge Kennedy was that the Federal government could not define marriage, it had to be the states.
‘The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.’
So then, the states did define marriage, and in some states it was a man and a women. But now we see that the court says that the states cannot define marriage. Huh?
I mean they are changing their minds on there own decisions here. Can they do that?
I think there are far more ramifications regarding how apparently states no longer have rights in the eyes of the court anymore. What are the repercussions of that?
It seems anything that the court has in the past said is a state right can now be challenged.
Are we so worried about same sex marriages that we give up something as fundamental as states’ rights to force it to happen?
‘The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.’
So then, the states did define marriage, and in some states it was a man and a women. But now we see that the court says that the states cannot define marriage. Huh?
I mean they are changing their minds on there own decisions here. Can they do that?
I think there are far more ramifications regarding how apparently states no longer have rights in the eyes of the court anymore. What are the repercussions of that?
It seems anything that the court has in the past said is a state right can now be challenged.
Are we so worried about same sex marriages that we give up something as fundamental as states’ rights to force it to happen?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
In each case conclusion was preordained. The “argument” is whatever most easily disposed of the case before them. Words have no meaning; logic is for suckers. It’s all raw politics now.
X
Xpiatio
Guest
St. Thomas More pray for us.
I do wonder though if it was apathy that got us to where we are. After all, all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. (taken from Burke).
As well, I do wonder what was going on in the mind of St. Thomas More, who knew that he would be put to death, yet still stood up for truth, unwavering.
I do wonder though if it was apathy that got us to where we are. After all, all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. (taken from Burke).
As well, I do wonder what was going on in the mind of St. Thomas More, who knew that he would be put to death, yet still stood up for truth, unwavering.
C
Contrarian
Guest
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
In our Western civilization, post Roman Empire for 2000 years, the best combination for deemed for society and the rearing of children is a monogamous man/woman couple. The New Testament for Christians has supplanted the antique, outdated practices of tribes in the desert regarding diet and marriage. Still, ONLY heterosexual arrangements are recognized for the purpose of reproduction in any culture of the world. Same-sex is sterile and there is no “consummation”. I’m really tired of these specious arguments trotting out the practices of the Old Testament. Our culture has thrived on the preservation of the family, meaning if you know where you come from, you will care about what happens to your children.
- Status