Scotus decision and how it is impacting ohio

[Ohiogal]

In my opinion:

Some homosexual couples went into bakeries looking to pick a fight, and not for the right reasons.
Some bakers refused and made a big deal of the gay couples coming in (and not for the right reasons)

If EVERYONE (every race, color, creed, religion and differing sexual preferences) would treat EVERYONE else with kindness and respect.

The people who do not believe in gay marriage, should have the right to tell a potential couple: "I'm sorry, but I do not feel comfortable being a part of your special day. I know of some really great bakers (photographers, designers, ministers, etc.) that will do a better job for you."

Unfortunately, not all business people/churches/etc., handled the situation with kindness or respect.
And in some cases the LGBT community, responded badly when they were treated with kindness and respect.

*shrug* perhaps I think too simply...perhaps I just would like everyone treated with respect and kindness.

The Supreme court has dealt with the issue of businesses discriminating -- it pertained to treatment of African Americans. If you are a public business, you are under the commerce clause. End of story.

 

[CdwJava]

But think of all the people with truly held religious beliefs where exercising discretion based on those beliefs would trigger defined, long established, illegal discrimination?

We're not talking about an incident where someone is kicked out of a restaurant for skin color (NOT a recognized religious tenet of any faith I am aware of), we are talking about requests for events supporting a holy sacrament.

A person who has religious beliefs that are so strong that they cannot separate the secular world from the religious world should not be in a business where their beliefs clash with the law. Its that whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" bit.

One cannot and SHOULD NOT be required to set their faith or beliefs at the door because they are engaged in commerce.

A Bakery bakes a cake. They might even deliver the cake, but that is the extent of their involvement.

And if you ordered a cake with white frosting saying "Congratulations," it might be just fine and dandy. But, when you are ordering a cake that says, Happy wedding day, Bob and Steve," it can cause a conundrum. Most bakers aren't going to inquire as to the reason for the cake, but a message on the cake - perhaps even producing it - may very well conflict with a strongly held belief and they should not be forced to participate in something that can be seen as supporting the act.

A church has always been free to refuse to marry any couple based on their religious beliefs, and obviously that will not change just because more people are eligible to be married. However a church does not hold themselves out as available to perform that kind of service for the general public.

We are swiftly moving to a point where even speaking against same-sex marriage will be seen as hate speech. It's already happened in Canada and Great Britain, and on US college campuses, and religious organizations that hold an opposing view to same-sex marriage are branded as "hate" organizations in the same breath as ****s and other white supremacists. However, until that time, people should be free to act on their conscience and not compelled through the power of the state to conform. If it is a poor business decision NOT to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, then let the marketplace decide - not the state.

 

[CdwJava]

Personally I have to ask...How does it hurt anyone or any faith for two consenting adults to marry? Cause of words written thousands of years ago? Not every Bible passage is adhered to now-a days.
Thank God in His Wisdom for that Enlightenment!

jus'sayin'

If two people of the same sex wish to "marry" they can do so since the state is willing to recognize the union. However, the state cannot and should not compel others to support those unions through the threat of criminal and civil sanctions.

Personally, I oppose same-sex marriage. However, I would never do anything to stop it. I would not attend a same-sex marriage ceremony that purports to be anything but a civil ceremony since I could not in good conscience support such a union. I HAVE attended, and will soon again be attending, a civil ceremony for same sex couples who are friends or family members - and I will wish them well. But, had these been held in a church of some kind or by some form of minister alleging the union was to be blessed by God, I would not attend. Neither should any business be forced to support such a union. As has been the case with many/most/all? of the cases involving business owners being driven out of business by such suits, they have recommended other businesses that would be happy to serve the parties involved ... but, that did not seem good enough as the intent seemed to be to send a message and use the state to compel support. That's simply not right.

 

[CdwJava]

I responded to CdwJava and asked if Caitlyn Jenner was beautiful. Guess that didn't go over too well.

I didn't see it ... and, no, I don't think he/she is.

 

[Bali Hai]

The Supreme court has dealt with the issue of businesses discriminating -- it pertained to treatment of African Americans. If you are a public business, you are under the commerce clause. End of story.

Big brother or perhaps sister has spoken.

 

[CdwJava]

You didn't look too hard either:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicaprobus/24-hilarious-divorce-cakes-that-are-even-better-than-wedding#.yfeVq4RKp

And there are several other sites for such things. They exist. As do "second wedding" cakes and various other things that are considered cakes for sinful things. Hence bakeries are being very ignorant and hypocritical saying they are good Christians and not refusing to bake cakes for unmarried pregnant women (for their baby showers) or divorce cakes.

Must be rare things as I have never seen a divorce cake. And a cake for a baby shower, not usually an issue that involves a sacrament nor does it involve a great deal of information to the baker. Order a cake that says, "It's a Girl," or, "Congratulations," and it's simple and done. And while having children out of wedlock might have resulted from a sinful act, it's not part of a sacrament so it's hardly hypocritical.

Oh, and the last I checked it is primarily the Catholic church among the Christian faiths that is fundamentally opposed to divorce.

 

[Just Blue]

We're not talking about an incident where someone is kicked out of a restaurant for skin color (NOT a recognized religious tenet of any faith I am aware of), we are talking about requests for events supporting a holy sacrament.


One cannot and SHOULD NOT be required to set their faith or beliefs at the door because they are engaged in commerce.


And if you ordered a cake with white frosting saying "Congratulations," it might be just fine and dandy. But, when you are ordering a cake that says, Happy wedding day, Bob and Steve," it can cause a conundrum. Most bakers aren't going to inquire as to the reason for the cake, but a message on the cake - perhaps even producing it - may very well conflict with a strongly held belief and they should not be forced to participate in something that can be seen as supporting the act.


We are swiftly moving to a point where even speaking against same-sex marriage will be seen as hate speech. It's already happened in Canada and Great Britain, and on US college campuses, and religious organizations that hold an opposing view to same-sex marriage are branded as "hate" organizations in the same breath as ****s and other white supremacists. However, until that time, people should be free to act on their conscience and not compelled through the power of the state to conform. If it is a poor business decision NOT to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, then let the marketplace decide - not the state.

But how does it "hurt" the baker if "Bob and Steve" marry? Two loving, adult and devoted persons would like the same "cake" as Ken and Barbie. What is the issue with that???????

 

[Ladyback1]

If two people of the same sex wish to "marry" they can do so since the state is willing to recognize the union. However, the state cannot and should not compel others to support those unions through the threat of criminal and civil sanctions.

Personally, I oppose same-sex marriage. However, I would never do anything to stop it. I would not attend a same-sex marriage ceremony that purports to be anything but a civil ceremony since I could not in good conscience support such a union. I HAVE attended, and will soon again be attending, a civil ceremony for same sex couples who are friends or family members - and I will wish them well. But, had these been held in a church of some kind or by some form of minister alleging the union was to be blessed by God, I would not attend. Neither should any business be forced to support such a union. As has been the case with many/most/all? of the cases involving business owners being driven out of business by such suits, they have recommended other businesses that would be happy to serve the parties involved ... but, that did not seem good enough as the intent seemed to be to send a message and use the state to compel support. That's simply not right.

And that would be your choice, but I don't agree with your reasons or rationale.

 

[Nellibelle]

We're not talking about an incident where someone is kicked out of a restaurant for skin color (NOT a recognized religious tenet of any faith I am aware of), we are talking about requests for events supporting a holy sacrament.


One cannot and SHOULD NOT be required to set their faith or beliefs at the door because they are engaged in commerce.


And if you ordered a cake with white frosting saying "Congratulations," it might be just fine and dandy. But, when you are ordering a cake that says, Happy wedding day, Bob and Steve," it can cause a conundrum. Most bakers aren't going to inquire as to the reason for the cake, but a message on the cake - perhaps even producing it - may very well conflict with a strongly held belief and they should not be forced to participate in something that can be seen as supporting the act.

We are swiftly moving to a point where even speaking against same-sex marriage will be seen as hate speech. It's already happened in Canada and Great Britain, and on US college campuses, and religious organizations that hold an opposing view to same-sex marriage are branded as "hate" organizations in the same breath as ****s and other white supremacists. However, until that time, people should be free to act on their conscience and not compelled through the power of the state to conform. If it is a poor business decision NOT to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, then let the marketplace decide - not the state.

I totally agree! Any business person should be able to adhere to their beliefs even while performing services.

I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I also believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt honor thy Father and Mother." It says nothing about honoring thy Father and Father or Mother and Mother.

As a young child, I felt self-conscious and embarrassed when most of my classmates would talk about their parents when I only had one parent due to divorce. I can't help but think of the embarrassment and self-consciousness a child of a same-sex married couple would feel in a conversation with classmates about their parents.

I think the Supreme Court Decision encourages Atheism since same sex married couples would forgo having their children being guided spiritually because most churches are against such unions. I'm afraid religion and many churches will steadily decline as a result.

It is horrible to believe anyone or any government has the right to redefine Marriage, when it has already been defined by God.

It would have been better to catigorize it as a "Legal Union" rather than "Marriage!" That way, same sex unions would have the same rights as a married couple.

 

[Just Blue]

I totally agree! Any business person should be able to adhere to their beliefs even while performing services.

I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I also believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt honor thy Father and Mother." It says nothing about honoring thy Father and Father or Mother and Mother.

As a young child, I felt self-conscious and embarrassed when most of my classmates would talk about their parents when I only had one parent due to divorce. I can't help but think of the embarrassment and self-consciousness a child of a same-sex married couple would feel in a conversation with classmates about their parents.

I think the Supreme Court Decision encourages Atheism since same sex married couples would forgo having their children being guided spiritually because most churches are against such unions. I'm afraid religion and many churches will steadily decline as a result.

It is horrible to believe anyone or any government has the right to redefine Marriage, when it has already been defined by God.

It would have been better to catigorize it as a "Legal Union" rather than "Marriage!" That way, same sex unions would have the same rights as a married couple.

And how do YOU know it was "defined" by God? Did He speak to you? Or are you reading a THOUSANDS YEAR old WORD OF MOUTH COMMENT?

 

[LdiJ]

If two people of the same sex wish to "marry" they can do so since the state is willing to recognize the union. However, the state cannot and should not compel others to support those unions through the threat of criminal and civil sanctions.

Personally, I oppose same-sex marriage. However, I would never do anything to stop it. I would not attend a same-sex marriage ceremony that purports to be anything but a civil ceremony since I could not in good conscience support such a union. I HAVE attended, and will soon again be attending, a civil ceremony for same sex couples who are friends or family members - and I will wish them well. But, had these been held in a church of some kind or by some form of minister alleging the union was to be blessed by God, I would not attend. Neither should any business be forced to support such a union. As has been the case with many/most/all? of the cases involving business owners being driven out of business by such suits, they have recommended other businesses that would be happy to serve the parties involved ... but, that did not seem good enough as the intent seemed to be to send a message and use the state to compel support. That's simply not right.

While I kind of see your point, I personally disagree with you about a church wedding. If a particular church supports the union, who am I to challenge that church's tenets? Who am I to say that they are violating their personal covenant with god?

When I was 18 years old and exploring spirituality I had a conversation with a Catholic priest that has never left me. I was questioning the contradictions of various religions and asking for an explanation of how anyone could know who was right and who was wrong. His response was that nobody knows who is right and who is wrong, but that he believed that as long as you kept your own personal covenant with god that you would go to heaven. Nothing that any other member of the clergy has said to me has ever had as much impact.

The bottom line however is that there is the religious world and the secular world. Nobody is ever going to convince me that "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and rending unto God what is God's" is not the right way to handle things.

 

[CdwJava]

But how does it "hurt" the baker if "Bob and Steve" marry? Two loving, adult and devoted persons would like the same "cake" as Ken and Barbie. What is the issue with that???????

It doesn't "hurt" them in any way that you might understand. But, by supporting something they see as a sacrament between God and a man and a woman, they can believe they are committing a sinful act by supporting the union. A Biblical interpretation of marriage is that between a man and a woman and blessed by God, and, by those who participate in the wedding. It is arguable, from a religious perspective, whether providing the flowers, a cake, a tuxedo or dress, etc., is "support" in the Biblical sense, but do we really want the state getting into the business of interpreting religious doctrine?!? I don't!

What harm is there in proving alternatives? Why FORCE a business to support an act they view to believe contrary to their faith? Simply, why is it so important to compel someone to support an act they find wrong? Their refusal to bake a cake will not prevent the marriage from occurring, so why the great need to make them comply? Such use of state force seems ... well ... terrifying.

 

[CdwJava]

And that would be your choice, but I don't agree with your reasons or rationale.

And that's fine. But, just as you and I can act on our choices, so should others of faith be permitted to act on theirs. Whether you or I agree or disagree is not the issue.

 

[Nellibelle]

And how do YOU know it was "defined" by God? Did He speak to you? Or are you reading a THOUSANDS YEAR old WORD OF MOUTH COMMENT?

Like millions of other people, I believe in what the bible says concerning a man and a woman, particularly Genesis 2:18-25 and Matthew 19:4-6. Although much of what is said in the bible can be easilly misinterpreted by those lacking reading comprehension, I can clearly understand what is stated in Genesis and Matthew concerning the importance of a union between a man and a woman.

 

[CdwJava]

And how do YOU know it was "defined" by God? Did He speak to you? Or are you reading a THOUSANDS YEAR old WORD OF MOUTH COMMENT?

Oh, dear ... are we really going to get into a discussion of the Bible and how it may or may not be the Word of God?