Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
SCOTUS rules Gawd hates gays
topdawgnc
Member Posts: 7,839
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
Wow, 7-2 vote as well. I did not see that one cuming. Religious freedom is still a thing I guess. Cool.
-
*cummingSwaye said:Wow, 7-2 vote as well. I did not see that one cuming. Religious freedom is still a thing I guess. Cool.
-
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added. -
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added. -
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
-
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
But the left loves mooselimbs. That's the funny part.RaceBannon said:
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
SCOTUS came nowhere close to even considering the business and discrimination issues. Their entire ruling was about the animosity the local commission showed against the baker dude.Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added. -
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?YellowSnow said:I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
-
Did she sign a marriage certificate will Ellen?GrundleStiltzkin said:
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?YellowSnow said:I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
-
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Wasn't talking about marriage per se, so I probably shouldn't have quoted you're poast. I was talking more broadly (lololllolo), like employment non-discrimination laws, etc.YellowSnow said:
Did she sign a marriage certificate will Ellen?GrundleStiltzkin said:
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?YellowSnow said:I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
-
This guy gets itHippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.RaceBannon said:
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
So a baker can refuse to bake a cake that's just too faggy?
-
So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?2001400ex said:
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.RaceBannon said:
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
Faggy and wedding cake are one and the same.TurdBuffer said:So a baker can refuse to bake a cake that's just too faggy?
-
White wedding cake is goddamned delicious though. Unless you ruin it with faggy raspberry filling.dflea said:
Faggy and wedding cake are one and the same.TurdBuffer said:So a baker can refuse to bake a cake that's just too faggy?
-
Yes that's exactly right.RaceBannon said:
So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?2001400ex said:
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.RaceBannon said:
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
I'll wait for Race to chime in on how Trump is right. He's waiting for the talking points memo.2001400ex said:
Yes that's exactly right.RaceBannon said:
So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?2001400ex said:
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.RaceBannon said:
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones. -
I think Mooselimbs should cook my Jimmy Dean pork sausage. That's ok right?
-
My religion says I should not have to bake cakes for inter-racial weddings.
#religiiusfreedom -
Race and sexuality are the same!dhdawg said:My religion says I should not have to bake cakes for inter-racial weddings.
#religiiusfreedom
Also, WTFAY? -
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
I guess you think everyone just rolled around with dried reeds and papyrus and jugs of ink back then. When you got super tall did your brain shrink?YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Couldn't they just get an app for their phone?Swaye said:
I guess you think everyone just rolled around with dried reeds and papyrus and jugs of ink back then. When you got super tall did your brain shrink?YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Swaye said:
I guess you think everyone just rolled around with dried reeds and papyrus and jugs of ink back then. When you got super tall did your brain shrink?YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
-
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
