California Judge Rules In Favor Of Christian

[betsy]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

Explain to me again how "Do what I say or DIE" is the same as 'free will' and an actual choice?  

 

Dying is the consequence of the other option - rejecting God.  I didn't merely explain it, I gave you an analogy!

 

Picture this: 

You're drowning, Diahlamah.  I'm on a boat and had extended my hand to you, and it went like this:

 

betsy:  Diahlamah, do you want to live?

Diahlamah:  YESSSSS!  <gulp>  <splash>

betsy:  Are you sure?

Diahlamah:  <splash>  <gulp>  OF COURSE I'M SURE!

betsy:  Here - take my hand!  I'll pull you out of the water!  <saw something in the distance>  UH-OH.

Diahlamah:   <gulp> Did you wash your hand? Is it clean? <splash>

betsy:  JUST TAKE IT!  An alligator is coming!

Diahlamah:  <gulp>  <gulp>  You didn't answer my question!

 

Betsy:  <lifts up and shows Diahlamah a huge print-out of an eye-roll emoji>  Stop being silly! 

IF YOU WANT TO LIVE, TAKE MY HAND!  IF YOU DON'T TAKE IT, YOU'LL SURELY DIE!  

 

There.  See your choices: take my hand or not, and the consequences - living and dying?  Simple enough?

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by betsy

[Guest]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Therefore, the law,  is one who's got control whether you should live, or die.

 

Look what happened to a boy in UK - and I don't think that's about euthanasia either.  His parents fought it out in court.  They want to give him the chance to live.    It's simply the systems wouldn't allow the parents to take the boy outside the country for treatment!    Who's in control? 

 

That's what I'm saying when I responded to the post of another poster who imagine he's got control over his death.  It's just an idea. 

To have a say whether you want to end it, and how.   Dying with dignity.  An idea that seems ideal - but it's not reality. 

Heck, a minor can't even refuse treatment (if he's terminally ill), and be left to die with dignity - IN HIS FAITH! 

If it's about faith - forget it.  They don't see the dignity in dying,  wrapped in one's faith. 

 

We live in a world with shallow values, where-in common sense seems to not exist anymore.  

 

What does the law really knows about something that's psychological in a person?  Whether the person is truly wanting to die, or simply have been "led" to that idea by others?  We have laws against murder and rape - does the law stop them from being committed?

Would you agree that women who have post-partum blues should be able to access assisted suicide?  Depression is also a painful thing to go through, though it's not readily visible to the naked eye. 

What about addicts who are forever trying to fight addiction, but always losing?  Should we allow them to have access to assisted suicide....just to end it all?   Who's more relieved in the end?  Who benefit the most?  The one who committed suicide.....or the ones who don't have to put up with him anymore?

 

 

 

 

The law has control over a lot of things.  In this case, I would like the law to have control over whether not I have a basic choice in life, and I would like the law to say I do.  It doesn't yet, but I hope it does before I need it. 

In the case of a child such as the one you describe, I would say the medical professions would know more about what is best for the child than the parents, and faith should not enter into it.  The child is not old enough to decide on what he believes.

The law doesn't need to know about psychology.  The law just needs to allow the choice.  The medical professional approached can do the assessing.  One would assume that there are few Dr Nicks out there who would just do it for the money regardless, but even if there were, it still beats a tall building.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Which proves the point that a non-believer is the last person you'd want to argue with about faith.  He doesn't care about the Scriptures, nor believe about faith. 

 

But, a Christian - like the bakers in this topic - would be.

Don't forget, these Christians are being persecuted for believing in what the Bible says about homosexuality. 

Well, as I said earlier, my internal jury is still out on the rights and wrongs of such things, there being much variation involved, but one thing I do know:  Nobody was or would have been forced to do anything.  Nobody is forced to be a baker.  The argument is not about faith.  It's about whether or not adherence to such trumps another's right to service without discrimination.

In some cases it does, in some it doesn't.  In this case the court made a decision I can live with, based only on your OP.  There might be things about it I don't know that would change my mind, such as cake availability in the area.  If the court had decided the other way, they would still not have been forced to provide the service.  They could have suffered for their faith.  They wouldn't be the first ones.

In the end, if you get a business licence, you are being given permission by the state to make money by providing a service.  You have to follow the rules the state sets if the state insists.  I'm glad there was leeway in this case, but such shouldn't be taken for granted.

[betsy]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

In the case of a child such as the one you describe, I would say the medical professions would know more about what is best for the child than the parents, and faith should not enter into it.  The child is not old enough to decide on what he believes.

 

It wasn't about faith!  The child was dying.  The parents wanted to try an experimental drug to be done in the USA.  The UK doctors were just going to let him die!  Who gives them the power to decide the boy should just die?

Edited March 6, 2018 by betsy

[Guest]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

It wasn't about faith!  The child was dying.  The parents wanted to try an experimental drug to be done in the USA.  The UK doctors were just going to let him die!  Who gives them the power to decide the boy should just die?

Ah, I see.  In that case, I might agree with you completely.  I am one who thinks that anyone should have the choice to try any drug, in any stage of development, as a guinea pig if the manufacturer will allow it, without any consequence for the manufacturer in the case of ill effects or death.

 

[betsy]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, I see.  In that case, I might agree with you completely.  I am one who thinks that anyone should have the choice to try any drug, in any stage of development, as a guinea pig if the manufacturer will allow it, without any consequence for the manufacturer in the case of ill effects or death.

 

Here is the story. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/health/charlie-gard-death/index.html

 

Imagine the frustration and angst of the parents who were racing against time.  Diagnosis aren't always true. 

I knew someone whose unborn child was diagnosed with Down's, and they were trying to convince the mom to abort.  She refused. The child was born.....healthy!  No Down's syndrome (and she's been her mom's pride and joy).  She was a single mom who didn't have enough education (we helped her collect the wages that was owed her by her employer).

 

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

Will the Bible soon be considered hate speech by the moral-less majority?

Those who follow the Bible are the moral-less ones. They are like criminals that only obey the law out of fear and will sneak around when they think they won't be caught. Those who require the rules of the Bible to guide them for fear of the retribution of God are truly moral-less for they do not make choices on their own but are purely driven by fear.

[betsy]

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Those who follow the Bible are the moral-less ones. They are like criminals that only obey the law out of fear and will sneak around when they think they won't be caught. Those who require the rules of the Bible to guide them for fear of the retribution of God are truly moral-less for they do not make choices on their own but are purely driven by fear.

 

How do you know about our society's laws?

Are you following our society's law only out of fear (of getting caught)..........or do you think it makes for a better society? 

Or, does your conscience tells you what's righteous or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by betsy

[taxme]

On 2/28/2018 at 2:49 AM, betsy said:

Who would've thought this would happen?  In California to boot!  Finally.......reason seems to be coming back.

 

This must be a precedent!

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory

 

It is indeed tyranny!  To have let this go on, which saw some folks lose their business over frivolous lawsuits by senseless LGBT activists, is what's so disgusting about this!   How many cases involved premeditation and malice - to actually pick out known Christian entrepreneurs to bully?

Not only  does this kind of frivolity clutters the justice system....but it also disrupts businesses, and lives!  How many employees lose their jobs when a small business goes under because of this?  It has its own ripple effect!

 

There should be some penalties for LGBT activists who indulge in this kind of shenanigans.  If they lose the case, the plaintiff must shoulder all the expenses incurred by the defendant in defending himself - which include his legal expenses (and punitive damages)!

Well that is great news to hear, and like you said, this happened in California the most liberal state in the union. If one owns a business and decides that they do not want to bake a cake for anyone well that should be their choice. Hey, if they lose a customer because of whatever well that is less money coming in to the business. Obviously they could careless about that money. They took a stand and stayed with it. Great for them. 

Now we both know that here in Canada that will never happen because the left wing liberal CBC media would go ballistic on that one, and so would our fearless dear leaders the politically correct politicians and the human wrongs commission would be on their azzes so fast that their heads would be spinning for weeks there after. The courts would have their azzes in a sling. It's not like they were called fag--ts or something. Now that would probably have hurt their gay feelings more than being refused to have a cake baked for them. All they have to do is walk away and even pass it on to the gay community that don't go to this store they hurt my gay feelings. 

There are just too many lawsuits being thrown around these days. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If anyone wants to appear rude or ignorant well that should be their choice. No one should be allowed to sue someone else because some other person offended their snowflake cry baby feelings. It's no wonder the courts are so busy and all tied up thanks in part to these frivolous lawsuits. Cheesh. Some people need to grow some ba--ls. 

[betsy]

On 3/7/2018 at 5:05 PM, taxme said:

There are just too many lawsuits being thrown around these days.

Just when you think it can't get any more bizarre than this.....lo, and behold.

 

Quote

Gay couple launch lawsuit against tiny town for discrimination against their business

 

As well as facing obstructions from the town council, the couple claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon church) had a direct influence on the outcome of their business and town decisions, which violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/16/gay-couple-launch-lawsuit-against-tiny-town-for-discrimination-against-their-business/

 

 

Gay or not....who in their right mind  would think it sensible to invest building a bar - Rustlers Restaurant and Saloon -  in a town with a population of  366?  Which I assume are mostly Mormons!

 

You know what they say with small-town mentality.  I don't know how long this couple had lived there, but it usually isn't easy to be a newcomer in old, small communities.  What more if it's predominantly peopled by a certain group.....the harder it gets to be accepted.  They'll tend to be protective of one another - if other Mormons have restaurants/bars - maybe you're seen as not only someone who they're not supposed to associate with, but as a competition as well.  The problem is compounded by religious doctrine:

 

Quote

LGBTQIA Mormons face a kind of shunning, as well. In addition to the new policy of 2015 that labels those in a same-sex marriage as apostates and excludes their children from baptism and other activity in the church (the closest to shunning I can find that is mandated by the leadership), there is doctrinally little place for the non-heterosexual in the Mormon celestial kingdom.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/do-mormons-shun_us_5a007e70e4b076eaaae27173

 

LOCATION -  is always the key in any business.  Know and choose your location well.

 

No one stops you from moving and opening up businesses into these towns.....but you've got to understand that it may not be that easy to fit in. 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

11 hours ago, betsy said:

Gay or not....who in their right mind  would think it sensible to invest building a bar - Rustlers Restaurant and Saloon -  in a town with a population of  366?

I can't speak for that part of the country, but I do know several small town bars that are quite successful. Perhaps a gay bar would be much less so, but I don't see anything to indicate that was the case here.

[betsy]

Here's the Supreme Court ruling:

 

 

Quote

 

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

 

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

 

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

[Goddess]

I'm not sure this is the "win" you were hoping for, Betsy. 

The ruling was regarding the circumstances of this particular case.  It doesn't endorse the broader "right to discriminate" that you are seeking.  All this ruling said was that the baker didn't get a respectful hearing from the Commission.

You will need to re-double your anti-LGBTQ efforts in order to legally discriminate against people you don't agree with.

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm not sure this is the "win" you were hoping for, Betsy. The ruling was regarding the circumstances of this particular case.  It doesn't endorse the broader "right to discriminate" that you are seeking.  All this ruling said was that the baker didn't get a respectful hearing from the Commission.

Well, I was ready to accept it and starting to ponder what it means but looks like you are right:

Quote

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

It's too bad because I was looking forward to not being able to buy ham from all of the Muslim cashiers at Loblaws

[Goddess]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I was ready to accept it and starting to ponder what it means but looks like you are right:

It's too bad because I was looking forward to not being able to buy ham from all of the Muslim cashiers at Loblaws

I think the broader issues have already been addressed, but still need to be clarified and firmed up in some states or else what you said above would really be the case. 

Nothing in the above decision says you can now legally discriminate against the gay community by refusing them service.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Constitutional free speech and religious rights trump sexual orientation rights.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Constitutional free speech and religious rights trump sexual orientation rights.

You just love saying TRUMP. 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Constitutional free speech and religious rights trump sexual orientation rights.

I guess you didn't read the posts just above.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess you didn't read the posts just above.

 

I guess you didn't read the ruling...or U.S. Constitution. 

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I guess you didn't read the ruling...or U.S. Constitution. 

As always, I am your faithful excerpt barrista:

Quote

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said SteveVladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

 

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As always, I am your faithful excerpt barrista:

 

 

Nevertheless, this USSC ruling (at 7-2), is a major victory for individual free speech and religious rights when "social justice warriors" seek discrimination redress from government.

There are limits that work in both directions....pursuing such an agenda will not always be a winner.

Edited June 5, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1) Nevertheless, this USSC ruling (at 7-2), is a major victory for individual free speech and religious rights when "social justice warriors" seek discrimination redress from government.

2) There are limits that work in both directions....pursuing such an agenda will not always be a winner.

1) They are at war for you.  

2) Absolutely agree.  I am actually concerned that Canada's laws will overreach - with popular support of course - and mandate language and behaviour in places of worship.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) They are at war for you.  

2) Absolutely agree.  I am actually concerned that Canada's laws will overreach - with popular support of course - and mandate language and behaviour in places of worship.

 

No, they are at war for ideals they believe in...like females only swim time !   I already lived through the real civil rights wars...with much more than rainbow cakes at stake.

Canada uses Charter Politics to invoke that which is not written down....recall that Pierre Trudeau explicitly deleted protections for sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1) No, they are at war for ideals they believe in...like females only swim time !  

2) I already lived through the real civil rights wars...with much more than rainbow cakes at stake.

3) Canada uses Charter Politics to invoke that which is not written down....recall that Pierre Trudeau explicitly deleted protections for sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

1) If you ever become a demure female, you may be in need of their warring.

2) So you already owe them a debt

3) I don't understand.  The charter is written like the constitution is ?  Are you saying because it refers to the amorphous 'groups' ?  If so I see your point.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) If you ever become a demure female, you may be in need of their warring.

2) So you already owe them a debt

3) I don't understand.  The charter is written like the constitution is ?  Are you saying because it refers to the amorphous 'groups' ?  If so I see your point.

 

1)  I was trained to swim in uniform by the U.S. Navy in the open ocean...how hard could it be to swim in a burqa at a public pool.

2)  No, they owe me the debt...but they are mere amateurs at it today.

3)  I am referring to the Charter's drafting process and passage in the early 80's....language to protect sexual orientation rights was stricken for political expediency, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.