The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld (again) the ruling that a Lakewood baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple wanting to celebrate their (Massachussetts) wedding is guilty of discrimination under Colorado law.
'The appeals court wrote that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act "does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
Making a cake for a same-sex couple does not force the cake shop to convey a message supporting marriages between same-sex couples. But the law does prohibit the bakery from "picking and choosing its customers based on their sexual orientation."'
Yes. This.
Religious disapproval of something doesn't trump the law. "Free exercise of religion" doesn't mean being able to play the God card to avoid doing anything you don't like. Whether it's paying taxes that go to things you don't approve of, to hiring someone whose race your creed thinks you shouldn't be mixing with, to baking a cake for someone whose marital practices you don't think are morally correct — the right of religious objection is not absolute. If it were, would there be any legal barrier to human sacrifice, or smiting the heathen, or all the religious savagery of Europe that the Founders sought so diligently to avoid?
If Mr Phillips cannot bring himself to bake cakes for gay individuals — or blacks, or Jews, or veterans, or people in wheelchairs, or women — for reasons he considers religious, perhaps he should consider a change in business. That's not nice, or easy, but nobody ever said having the courage of your convictions was either.
Appeals Court: Lakewood baker discriminated against same-sex couple
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a Lakewood baker cannot cite his religious beliefs or free-speech rights in refusing to make a wedding cake for
It's amazing how many people are snubbing their noses at the law, like at some point laws became suggestions or something. I just read something similar where a judge ordered county clerks to file marriage licenses for same-sex couples but they're still refusing.
Homophobia is alive and well.
When did "practicing your religion" turn into "imposing your religion's beliefs on everybody"?
+Scott Randel Well, that's always been the case for far too many people. It's just that, in the past, it's usually been a majoritarian thing to do with the force of law behind it.
@Scott I think a lot of these people think that is what religion is about. That is the base message of fundamentalism after all.
At least this guy isn’t as repulsive (to my knowledge) as the bakers in Oregon. Part of the settlement in that case was more about the fact that Cakes by Melissa doxxed the couple and less that they refused to bake for them.
I seriously don’t understand anyone who lets their “belief” get in the way of doing their job. If you can’t do your job because of something, then maybe you should find another job. It’s just common sense.
+Marty Shaw There's a point where it seems to beyond "Gays are icky!" to a tantrum-like "You're not the boss of me!"
+Dave Hill , exactly. I think this snowball started rolling a while back and now some people are just seeing how much they get away with, sort of like all those articles talking about kids bucking the school rules and getting upset because they were suspended because they wore the wrong clothes or dyed their hair purple. Those whiny self-entitled kids become the whiny self-entitled adults who think they're special enough to operate under a different set of rules.
+Marty Shaw I think it's that we're seeing a whole new cohort of people being required to "get along" with others the don't like — and it's a cohort that has had the advantage of being a vocal majority, in charge, and thus feeling morally entitled to have their own way.
Now both demographics and, with it, society and its laws are calling all of that into question, and they are, understandably, not taking it well.
christians need to start following the laws of the land:
romans 13
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
+Christopher Li-Reid That would certainly seem to make sense. Some Christians (most openly on the fringes) don't quite see it that way:
– http://www.belt-of-truth.com/2013/01/18/romans-13-must-christians-submit-to-government/
– http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8841/
– http://www.greattrib.com/end-times-bible-study/romans-13-should-christians-obey-the-government-unconditionally
Frankly, slavishly obeying Paul here, as much as anywhere else, strikes me as wrong-headed. I tend to think this particular passage was more political on Paul's part than theological, something he could point to when the authorities said Christians thought themselves above the law.