SCOTUS Protects Religious Freedom!
The Supreme Court has ruled that cake bakers cannot be forced to bake cakes for same-sex "weddings." This is a huge win for religious freedom!
Comments
-
@reformed said:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/06/04/scotus-rules-bakers-opposed-to-gay-marriage-cant-be-forced-to-bake-cakes-n2487137The Supreme Court has ruled that cake bakers cannot be forced to bake cakes for same-sex "weddings." This is a huge win for religious freedom!
I had heard on-air analysis of the Court's ruling before I saw your thread, reformed, so I had a sense of the dimensions of the Court's holding. Before I read the townhall.com article to which you linked, I decided first to read the Court's opinion, which can be found HERE. To my surprise and to the site's credit, the townhall.com article accurately summarizes the limited applicability of the Court's ruling in future such cases (esp. the quoted tweets with which the article concludes). So, props to townhall.com.
The Court's ruling on multiple occasions reminds us that the Colorado baker declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple at a time when same-sex marriage was not legal in the state (i.e. before the Supreme Court's ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriage), hence leaving as an open question how a similar case launched in today's legal climate, in which same-sex marriage is the law of the land, would be decided.
The other obvious factor in the Court's ruling is what the Court determined was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility toward the baker's religious views. It's not clear how easily such findings of hostility will import to other cases, under other sets of facts.
So while, as townhall.com points out, today's ruling is a win for the Colorado baker, it's not at all clear how useful the Court's order will prove in future cases.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/06/04/scotus-rules-bakers-opposed-to-gay-marriage-cant-be-forced-to-bake-cakes-n2487137The Supreme Court has ruled that cake bakers cannot be forced to bake cakes for same-sex "weddings." This is a huge win for religious freedom!
I had heard on-air analysis of the Court's ruling before I saw your thread, reformed, so I had a sense of the dimensions of the Court's holding. Before I read the townhall.com article to which you linked, I decided first to read the Court's opinion, which can be found HERE. To my surprise and to the site's credit, the townhall.com article accurately summarizes the limited applicability of the Court's ruling in future such cases (esp. the quoted tweets with which the article concludes). So, props to townhall.com.
The Court's ruling on multiple occasions reminds us that the Colorado baker declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple at a time when same-sex marriage was not legal in the state (i.e. before the Supreme Court's ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriage), hence leaving as an open question how a similar case launched in today's legal climate, in which same-sex marriage is the law of the land, would be decided.
The other obvious factor in the Court's ruling is what the Court determined was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility toward the baker's religious views. It's not clear how easily such findings of hostility will import to other cases, under other sets of facts.
So while, as townhall.com points out, today's ruling is a win for the Colorado baker, it's not at all clear how useful the Court's order will prove in future cases.
It does establish that art, such as baking a cake or photography, is an expression of one's self, and one cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs with their talent. That's a win.
It is my hope that one day the stupid and unconstitutional ruling of same-sex marriage, which was politically motivated and not found in constitutional reality, will be reversed.
-
@reformed said:
It does establish that art, such as baking a cake or photography, is an expression of one's self, and one cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs with their talent. That's a win.Wins are in the eyes of the beholder, in cases such as this. As Justice Kennedy pointed out in his opinion on behalf of the Court, very few people look at a wedding cake and think about its decorator. Most people look at a cake - if they do at all! - and think about the couple.
It is my hope that one day the stupid and unconstitutional ruling of same-sex marriage, which was politically motivated and not found in constitutional reality, will be reversed.
From a constitutional perspective, a Supreme Court ruling BY DEFINITION cannot be unconstitutional. They can be correctly or incorrectly decided, depending on the observer's point of view, but they can't be unconstitutional.
Politically motivated? In our tribally partisan times, every ruling we disagree with is!
Can Supreme Court rulings be "stupid"? That's a term of art rarely used in these threads. The person who was basically the only one to invoke it here disconnected from these forums a few months ago. So if he's still checking in, he'll be pleased with your word choice and your use of it to describe the same-sex marriage decision. Similarly, he was probably heartened by your use of the phrase "Oh brother" a week or so ago - another phrase only he ever used. It's almost as if he never left. Thanks, reformed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
It does establish that art, such as baking a cake or photography, is an expression of one's self, and one cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs with their talent. That's a win.Wins are in the eyes of the beholder, in cases such as this. As Justice Kennedy pointed out in his opinion on behalf of the Court, very few people look at a wedding cake and think about its decorator. Most people look at a cake - if they do at all! - and think about the couple.
That doesn't mean it isn't an expression of art.
It is my hope that one day the stupid and unconstitutional ruling of same-sex marriage, which was politically motivated and not found in constitutional reality, will be reversed.
From a constitutional perspective, a Supreme Court ruling BY DEFINITION cannot be unconstitutional. They can be correctly or incorrectly decided, depending on the observer's point of view, but they can't be unconstitutional.
Obviously, but let's be honest, they created a right that is not in the Constitution. They changed definitions of words. It was a wrong decision. AND, if it is ever overturned, as it should be both legally and morally, it would be unconstitutional.
Politically motivated? In our tribally partisan times, every ruling we disagree with is!
Can Supreme Court rulings be "stupid"? That's a term of art rarely used in these threads. The person who was basically the only one to invoke it here disconnected from these forums a few months ago. So if he's still checking in, he'll be pleased with your word choice and your use of it to describe the same-sex marriage decision. Similarly, he was probably heartened by your use of the phrase "Oh brother" a week or so ago - another phrase only he ever used. It's almost as if he never left. Thanks, reformed.
And yes, decisions can be stupid.'
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.The ruling by SCOTUS showd a severe lack of common sense, so much that they had to change definitions to make their ruling work. So yes, by definition, it was stupid.
-
@reformed said:
That doesn't mean it isn't an expression of art.As you know, the court didn't grant the cake decorator's petition because it expressed "art." It granted the petition because it believes the Colorado action unconstitutionally infringed on the decorator's first amendment right to refuse to express views abrasive to his religious views. Art is the way the decorator expresses himself professionally, but the Court did not rule on the basis of the decorator's art.
Obviously, but let's be honest, they created a right that is not in the Constitution. They changed definitions of words. It was a wrong decision. AND, if it is ever overturned, as it should be both legally and morally, it would be unconstitutional.
You're obviously welcome to your point of view about the same-sex marriage decision, as well as to your amended view of its constitutionality. Previously, you claimed that the decision WAS unconstitutional. Now you claim that, in effect, it WOULD BE unconstitutional were it overturned.
And yes, decisions can be stupid.'
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.The ruling by SCOTUS showd a severe lack of common sense, so much that they had to change definitions to make their ruling work. So yes, by definition, it was stupid.
In my view, when presented without accompanying evidence, "stupid" is an insubstantial critique that is most articulately given voice on junior and senior high schoolyards.
-
IYes! A great win for America and the people of God!
[Oh Bill! You still have a pocket full of Red Herrings, haven’t you!]
Refreshing to stop by - nothing has changed. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That doesn't mean it isn't an expression of art.As you know, the court didn't grant the cake decorator's petition because it expressed "art." It granted the petition because it believes the Colorado action unconstitutionally infringed on the decorator's first amendment right to refuse to express views abrasive to his religious views. Art is the way the decorator expresses himself professionally, but the Court did not rule on the basis of the decorator's art.
Obviously, but let's be honest, they created a right that is not in the Constitution. They changed definitions of words. It was a wrong decision. AND, if it is ever overturned, as it should be both legally and morally, it would be unconstitutional.
You're obviously welcome to your point of view about the same-sex marriage decision, as well as to your amended view of its constitutionality. Previously, you claimed that the decision WAS unconstitutional. Now you claim that, in effect, it WOULD BE unconstitutional were it overturned.
And yes, decisions can be stupid.'
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.The ruling by SCOTUS showd a severe lack of common sense, so much that they had to change definitions to make their ruling work. So yes, by definition, it was stupid.
In my view, when presented without accompanying evidence, "stupid" is an insubstantial critique that is most articulately given voice on junior and senior high schoolyards.
The evidence of stupid is the utter lack of common sense. Marriage is a man and a woman. ALWAYS has been until this crazy redefining of words. It is nonsense, illogical, and definitely against biology.
-
@reformed said:
In my view, when presented without accompanying evidence, "stupid" is an insubstantial critique that is most articulately given voice on junior and senior high schoolyards.
The evidence of stupid is the utter lack of common sense. Marriage is a man and a woman. ALWAYS has been until this crazy redefining of words. It is nonsense, illogical, and definitely against biology.
You're of course welcome to your views about marriage and to your objections to Supreme Court rulings. My point about the adjective "stupid" was simply that as a rule, it makes no constructive contribution to discussions, in my view, even less of a contribution than the words "crazy" and "nonsense."
Your contention that same-sex marriage is "against biology" intrigues me. Are you contending that the purpose of marriage is principally - or at least initially - to advance procreation?
And then there's the question of what happens if it's biology (or genetics or some other branch of science) that produces our sexual orientation? What if I'm straight, not because I chose to be straight (and in fact, I made no such choice) but because biology or chemistry or genetics made me that way? Is my request for same-sex marriage THEN "against biology"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
In my view, when presented without accompanying evidence, "stupid" is an insubstantial critique that is most articulately given voice on junior and senior high schoolyards.
The evidence of stupid is the utter lack of common sense. Marriage is a man and a woman. ALWAYS has been until this crazy redefining of words. It is nonsense, illogical, and definitely against biology.
You're of course welcome to your views about marriage and to your objections to Supreme Court rulings. My point about the adjective "stupid" was simply that as a rule, it makes no constructive contribution to discussions, in my view, even less of a contribution than the words "crazy" and "nonsense."
Your contention that same-sex marriage is "against biology" intrigues me. Are you contending that the purpose of marriage is principally - or at least initially - to advance procreation?
Marriage is so that two can become one flesh as laid out in Scripture. Homosexuality doesn't fit.
And then there's the question of what happens if it's biology (or genetics or some other branch of science) that produces our sexual orientation? What if I'm straight, not because I chose to be straight (and in fact, I made no such choice) but because biology or chemistry or genetics made me that way? Is my request for same-sex marriage THEN "against biology"?
That is not the right question Bill. Can we be confused? Yes. But you cannot state that biology and sex lend themselves for anything homosexual in humans.
-
@reformed said:
Marriage is so that two can become one flesh as laid out in Scripture. Homosexuality doesn't fit.How do two people of different sexes "become one flesh" that two people of the same sex cannot?
That is not the right question Bill. Can we be confused? Yes. But you cannot state that biology and sex lend themselves for anything homosexual in humans.
It IS the "right question," reformed, because it's the question I asked. You might not like it or want to address it - which, in fact, you didn't - but it IS the right question.
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Marriage is so that two can become one flesh as laid out in Scripture. Homosexuality doesn't fit.How do two people of different sexes "become one flesh" that two people of the same sex cannot?
That is not the right question Bill. Can we be confused? Yes. But you cannot state that biology and sex lend themselves for anything homosexual in humans.
It IS the "right question," reformed, because it's the question I asked. You might not like it or want to address it - which, in fact, you didn't - but it IS the right question.
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
There is no sexual function biologically for people of the same sex Bill. It is against design.
So you are the arbiter of what is right? Wow, you are conceited aren't you?
-
@reformed said:
There is no sexual function biologically for people of the same sex Bill. It is against design.In a previous post, you claimed that "marriage is so that two can become one flesh as laid out in Scripture." Jesus' Matthew 19.1-12 conversation in which that phrase arises is about divorce, not the sexual orientations of those who are married. So I ask again, how do two people of different sexes become "one flesh" in marriage that two people of the same sex cannot?
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
So you are the arbiter of what is right? Wow, you are conceited aren't you?
I asked you to explain what you meant when you claimed that biology and sex don't "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Your assertions about my level of conceit don't help me understand what you meant, so I ask my question again.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There is no sexual function biologically for people of the same sex Bill. It is against design.In a previous post, you claimed that "marriage is so that two can become one flesh as laid out in Scripture." Jesus' Matthew 19.1-12 conversation in which that phrase arises is about divorce, not the sexual orientations of those who are married. So I ask again, how do two people of different sexes become "one flesh" in marriage that two people of the same sex cannot?
A man cannot have sex with a man and a woman cannot have sex with a woman (actual biological sex) and therefore cannot become one flesh.
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
So you are the arbiter of what is right? Wow, you are conceited aren't you?
I asked you to explain what you meant when you claimed that biology and sex don't "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Your assertions about my level of conceit don't help me understand what you meant, so I ask my question again.
I'm not going to talk about a Red Herring question just because you deem it the right question.
-
@reformed said:
A man cannot have sex with a man and a woman cannot have sex with a woman (actual biological sex) and therefore cannot become one flesh.Am I correct to assume that by "actual biological sex" you mean procreative sex? I ask because it's certainly possible for men and women to engage in sexual activity with other men and women that employs their biological sexual organs and processes.
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
I'm not going to talk about a Red Herring question just because you deem it the right question.
In a previous post, you claimed...
"But you cannot state that biology and sex lend themselves for anything homosexual in humans."
I didn't (and don't) know what you meant by those words, so I asked you to explain them. How is it possibly a "Red Herring question" when I ask nothing more than for you to explain YOUR OWN WORDS?
[How rich it is that the statement I asked you to explain via what you now call a "Red Herring question" was the last sentence in a four sentence response of yours, a response whose first sentence was, "That is not the right question Bill." Perhaps if you spent less time deciding which questions you aren't going to answer - because they're the "wrong" ones, or the "Red Herring" ones, or the "I don't like it" ones - you'd have more time to contribute to robust and constructive exchanges of ideas in these forums.]
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
A man cannot have sex with a man and a woman cannot have sex with a woman (actual biological sex) and therefore cannot become one flesh.Am I correct to assume that by "actual biological sex" you mean procreative sex? I ask because it's certainly possible for men and women to engage in sexual activity with other men and women that employs their biological sexual organs and processes.
Yes, which is what sex is designed for. Procreation. Pleasure comes with it, but the primary purpose is procreation. That is the biological design. Homosexual couples cannot do that. They forsake the natural order and defile themselves (Romans 1).
I don't know what it means for biology and sex to "lend themselves for anything homosexual." Please explain.
I'm not going to talk about a Red Herring question just because you deem it the right question.
In a previous post, you claimed...
"But you cannot state that biology and sex lend themselves for anything homosexual in humans."
I didn't (and don't) know what you meant by those words, so I asked you to explain them. How is it possibly a "Red Herring question" when I ask nothing more than for you to explain YOUR OWN WORDS?
[How rich it is that the statement I asked you to explain via what you now call a "Red Herring question" was the last sentence in a four sentence response of yours, a response whose first sentence was, "That is not the right question Bill." Perhaps if you spent less time deciding which questions you aren't going to answer - because they're the "wrong" ones, or the "Red Herring" ones, or the "I don't like it" ones - you'd have more time to contribute to robust and constructive exchanges of ideas in these forums.]
It has nothing to do what you choose to be, that's why it isn't the right question. We are all sinners. It is what is right in God's eyes by the word of Scripture and homosexuality is not compatible with God's design and Scripture.
