Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

There are tons of things in the Bible which are objectively, factually false.

What Christian religion rejects Paul’s teachings as an Apostle???

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

There are tons of things in the Bible which are objectively, factually false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Why are MSNBC contributors always wrong in their analysis?
This guy thinks he knows more than the Justices on SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

But the SC case is different because the web designer wasn’t asked to create a website with anti-(fill in the blank) messaging. She wasn’t asked to create a website that attacked any belief or could be construed as hate speech or incitement against any group. A better analogy would your being asked to create a Wiccan cake and refusing because you are Christian.

Going to court just in case someone might ask you to bake a Wiccan cake. It's completely bizarre to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

But the SC case is different because the web designer wasn’t asked to create a website with anti-(fill in the blank) messaging. She wasn’t asked to create a website that attacked any belief or could be construed as hate speech or incitement against any group. A better analogy would your being asked to create a Wiccan cake and refusing because you are Christian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Why are MSNBC contributors always wrong in their analysis?
This guy thinks he knows more than the Justices on SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.