Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
LOL...if your words are the enlightening sound the spot you seem to be assigning to me has already been claimed. For my part, I never implied I, or anyone else, was involved other than Hygro.
Baking Cakes and Discrimination: Or, "What Would Jesus Do?"
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
LOL...if your words are the enlightening sound the spot you seem to be assigning to me has already been claimed. For my part, I never implied I, or anyone else, was involved other than Hygro.
miaasma
King
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 626
something went over someone's head hereNow there's a good childish, uninformed, immature, sheep-chorus, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, or Ann Coulter-chant-led comment. A great contribution to a reasonably heady conversation.
Berzerker
Deity
Who claimed it?
Berzerker
Deity
I dont know what roofing of the goats is, but I was a bit surprised Door County has a tourism ambassador.
goats are cool, they have a mesmerizing, hypnotic gaze
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,008
What Jesus Would (go on to) Do is give his own life to redeem from their sins both the baker and each member of the gay couple.
Sorry to give the obvious answer, but no one had given it yet.
Sorry to give the obvious answer, but no one had given it yet.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Is that not what I posted?
Berzerker
Deity
not unless you're talking about another post
Zkribbler
Deity
I'm wondering why there's been no reference to "cake or death."
--No one expects the Church of England Inquisition!
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Don't care. He's a bigot. He's chosen to worship satan and burn in hell for all eternity. But his conscious and deliberate choice of eternal damnation is besides the point: The point is that in addition to being a foaming at the mouth rabid satanist, he's also a criminal. The law really doesn't care about the fact that he's choosing to spend eternity being raped by demons. The law cares about the fact that he is choosing to harm real people in a real way here.
Well that's a lovely rant, but has nothing to do with what I meant. You were calling him a hypocrite specifically for the "do unto others..." thing, but you don't actually know if he'd care about other people not wanting to bake him a cake at all, so that's kind of baseless.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
First off, Jesus does not give us what we desire. The point of contention was rendering a particular service. No where is it said, "Jesus gave people what they wanted", but he is fully capable of giving them what God needs them to have.
Secondly, which party was being more selfish? The guy who refused a service, or the couple who persisted he loose his means of income, because they did not get their way?
This is not an issue of promoting one's beliefs. Do we as individuals with the freedom to believe what we want, also have the freedom to discriminate a service to someone else? The Baker was not forcing his beliefs on them. He was refusing to accept their belief system.
Jesus does not accept any human belief system. Nor does he force humans to reject their own beliefs, and accept who he is. The whole point of his existence on earth was to offer an alternative (no pun intended) way of life. We view the Baker as imposing his will on the couple, which is a plausible view. And in effect God through Jesus is imposing humans to a will alien to their own.
I highly do not agree, that humans can change the mind of God by making their will legal. That seems to be the basis of most religious thought. That we create God according to our own human whims.
Azem.Ocram
King
Grade A Trolling right there! Congrats on purposely offending all religious conservatives who see this! I would never dream of such brash and obvious insults.
Cutlass and miaasma are the ones wishing the most misfortune on others. Refusing to endorse a choice (marriage is a choice regardless of orientation) that goes against one’s deep seated beliefs is acceptable, especially if there are competitors willing to accept the order. Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for prophylactics or arbortions and is a privately held company, therefore the baker should have similar. “Hate the sin, not the sinner” was paraphrased by a philosopher from India.
Dred Scott was overturned. IMO, the worst precedent yet to be overturned is Wickard vs Filburn.
Lexicus
Deity
At the time of this court decision Hobby Lobby's 401k plan had tens of millions of dollars induced in manufacturers of medication to induce abortion. "deep seated beliefs" my rear end.
And I was just starting to think you were kinda cool...
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think even a cursory examination of the Gospel would indicate that the correct response is "don't hate," period. The fact that so many self proclaimed 'followers of Christ' cling to this as a justification for being brazenly unwilling to walk what they talk is grotesque. Thanks for providing the example.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,668
You'll note the court chickened out when presented with the opportunity to state explicitly what Wickard vs Filburn implies... that the government can mandate the purchase of a private product for private profit. Instead they went with "it's a tax."
Azem.Ocram
King
1. I know Hobby Lobby is saving a lot of money by not paying for abortions. However, the laws are laws even when unjust. I hope universal healthcare comes to the USA, at least for basic/preventative and emergency/life-saving treatments.
2. I’m not cool. I’m nerdy and have zero chill. I also love pointing out flaws in arguments. However, I try to be rational and logical. I just don’t forget and rarely truly forgive (my trust and affection are earned and lost with each interaction).
3. Of course Christians are supposed to be loving and feel guilty for hatefulness. Social Justice Warriors are supposed to fight injustice and improve equitability. Really, Christians, Feminists, and SJW’s agree on many of the same tenets in theory and in theory are all good. The problem is hypocrisy and the sad thing is that all groups have hypocrites that hurt their cause or image. There are also trolls who pretend to belong to a group just to hurt it. I get along with Christians and SJWs when they promote peace. I identify as a 2nd wave moderate feminist, deist, utilitarian, and pacifist. I was raised Catholic though I agree with Lutherans more.
4. The implications of allowing a government to force someone to destroy his own property to make him buy it from someone else instead of self-reliance are downright insidious.
2. I’m not cool. I’m nerdy and have zero chill. I also love pointing out flaws in arguments. However, I try to be rational and logical. I just don’t forget and rarely truly forgive (my trust and affection are earned and lost with each interaction).
3. Of course Christians are supposed to be loving and feel guilty for hatefulness. Social Justice Warriors are supposed to fight injustice and improve equitability. Really, Christians, Feminists, and SJW’s agree on many of the same tenets in theory and in theory are all good. The problem is hypocrisy and the sad thing is that all groups have hypocrites that hurt their cause or image. There are also trolls who pretend to belong to a group just to hurt it. I get along with Christians and SJWs when they promote peace. I identify as a 2nd wave moderate feminist, deist, utilitarian, and pacifist. I was raised Catholic though I agree with Lutherans more.
4. The implications of allowing a government to force someone to destroy his own property to make him buy it from someone else instead of self-reliance are downright insidious.
You are starting from a false premise. Which is why you come to an utterly and absolutely ridiculous conclusion. A person's religious beliefs do not allow that person the right to cause harm to others. Now in their private lives, they can choose to be as scumbaggish as they want. But as a business, they may not cause harm to the public. And discrimination is harm to the public, if only to a small part of it.
I didn't know you were a communist. Thanks for clearing that up.
Not relevant.
What you do not understand about capitalism is that is that government allows businesses special privileges. Privileges that they would not enjoy should government not allow and protect them. But in exchange for those privileges, said businesses may not act in ways harmful to the public. Crony Capitalism, which is the God most conservatives these days worship before, during, and after, everything else, wants the privileges, but not the responsibilities.
miaasma
King
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 626
offending religious conservatives? i can't imagine trying to do such a thing
this is really the kind of nonsense i could only find on this forum and i'm so glad i was here on this day to witness it
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
There is a difference between refusing to do something, and making someone else uncomfortable in their beliefs. Otherwise every person who holds a belief is a bigot, discriminates, and is down right hateful, which would make the sting of the rebuke a mute point.
Berzerker
Deity
I didn't know you were a communist. Thanks for clearing that up.
you think opposition to the Wickard vs Filburn ruling is communism?
