Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

A California county superior court judge has ruled in favor of an anti-gay Christian baker who refused to sell a same-sex couple a custom wedding cake, citing her religious beliefs. Last August Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries bakery told a couple she would not bake them a cake and referred them to another baker.

 

. . . . . In December Judge Lampe refused to grant California a temporary restraining order barring Miller from selling any item to a different-sex couple she would not sell to a same-sex couple.

 

"The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

New Civil Rights Movement - Pre-Made Wedding Cakes vs Custom Cakes for Same Sex Couple Couples

 

read more at the link -

 

Guess the SCOTUS needs to hurry with their decision - expected in June.

403 Views
155
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


Where in the New Testament does it say not to bake a wedding cake for any kind of couple?


Your post brings to mind the question from the Sadducees about marriage designed to trick Jesus as related in the New Testament.


Paranoid or something? Or some attempt at an insult?  No trick, a serious question. What scripture do you refer to that means it would be wrong to make and sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
224 Views
38
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


What scripture do you refer to that means it would be wrong to make and sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?


Wedding cakes as such isn't the issue, it is violating one's beliefs in condoning gay conduct which is against New Testament teachings.  

 

But apparently you are ignoring that the lady was kind enough to have made arrangements for a competitor design and make the cake.  But apparently the cake wasn't the issue but forcing the particular baker to design and make the cake.

 

I gather that you are not interested in the cake but the fact that the baker herself refused to design, create and make the cake.  This comes across as an issue of some wanting their way regardless of how anyone else feels or who is hurt.  The lady was concerned about the couple by making arrangements with a competitor.

 

 

0 Kudos
185 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



Paranoid or something? Or some attempt at an insult?  No trick, a serious question. What scripture do you refer to that means it would be wrong to make and sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?


Apparently you didn't read the original article that was referenced.  It is the lady's religious beliefs about condoning gay marriages.  And yes I'm sure you knew that very well.

 

But I'm not avoiding the question, and my guess is that you are not that familiar with the scriptural basis for her beliefs, or even the basis for being a Christian.

0 Kudos
229 Views
36
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



Paranoid or something? Or some attempt at an insult?  No trick, a serious question. What scripture do you refer to that means it would be wrong to make and sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?


Apparently you didn't read the original article that was referenced.  It is the lady's religious beliefs about condoning gay marriages.  And yes I'm sure you knew that very well.

 

But I'm not avoiding the question, and my guess is that you are not that familiar with the scriptural basis for her beliefs, or even the basis for being a Christian.


Selling a wedding cake to a gay or straight couple is not "condoning" what they do. It is simply selling them a wedding cake.

 

To the contrary, I am most likely just as familiar with the scriptures as you are. Someone disagreeing with you does not mean they are not as familiar. I asked the question because you could have been referencing any of quite a few scriptures that could be erroneously interpreted to justify discriminating against someone because of a religious belief. Yes you did "avoid the question" but ..... you interpreted a meaning from scriptures in Romans, as you posted to someone else. I addressed that interpretation in my reply to that posting.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
240 Views
35
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



Selling a wedding cake to a gay or straight couple is not "condoning" what they do. It is simply selling them a wedding cake.

 

To the contrary, I am most likely just as familiar with the scriptures as you are. Someone disagreeing with you does not mean they are not as familiar. I asked the question because you could have been referencing any of quite a few scriptures that could be erroneously interpreted to justify discriminating against someone because of a religious belief. Yes you did "avoid the question" but ..... you interpreted a meaning from scriptures in Romans, as you posted to someone else. I addressed that interpretation in my reply to that posting.


So if you sold someone a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime wouldn't necessarily mean you were condoning the crime?

 

And what passages in Romans did I quote?  So are you 'interpreting' my posts or did you take them to mean what I posted?  I don't think that the passages are ambiguous in what they say.  Of course you are interpreting them the way you want.  What is to be interpreted when it condemns certain actions?  The meaning is clear as written.

 

I question your knowledge of these passages.

 

0 Kudos
268 Views
34
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



Selling a wedding cake to a gay or straight couple is not "condoning" what they do. It is simply selling them a wedding cake.

 

To the contrary, I am most likely just as familiar with the scriptures as you are. Someone disagreeing with you does not mean they are not as familiar. I asked the question because you could have been referencing any of quite a few scriptures that could be erroneously interpreted to justify discriminating against someone because of a religious belief. Yes you did "avoid the question" but ..... you interpreted a meaning from scriptures in Romans, as you posted to someone else. I addressed that interpretation in my reply to that posting.


So if you sold someone a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime wouldn't necessarily mean you were condoning the crime?

 

The meaning is clear as written.

 

I question your knowledge of these passages.

 


Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 

If it is clear as written then show the "writing" or scripture you base your claim on.

 

And I question your knowledge of these passages, so I guess that makes us even.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
281 Views
33
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.

0 Kudos
272 Views
32
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.


A criticism better applied to yourself Tex.

 

Your Biblical reference is a favorite of ignorant bigoted gay bashers who use it out of context and ignore everything that precedes it.

 

If you took the time to understand it and had knowledge of what it addressed you would realize that it has to do with Roman Christians going back to their previous pagan practices and NOTHING to do with condemnation of gay people!

 

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
887 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!


Ok, I'll bite... do you understand it?

 

Verses 20 thru 24 of that chapter:

 

"20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves"

 

That isn't applicable to the rest of the chapter?

 

Again back to the topic of the wedding cake for gays....the baker was sticking to her religious beliefs fully knowing the penalties of the law, much like the early Christians under the Roman law.   The similarities is their faith.

 

I would believe that all this has been completely hashed out over and over and has become redundant.

 

 

0 Kudos
875 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!


Ok, I'll bite... do you understand it?

Yes I do Tex ..... But YOU obviously do not!

 

Verses 20 thru 24 of that chapter:

 

"20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves"

 

That isn't applicable to the rest of the chapter?

Never said it wasn't Tex!

And if you understood it, you would know that it has to do with worshiping idols (exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles) ..... one of the pagan practices that Roman Christians reinstated for themselves!

Your reference has just proven what I stated! 

 

Again back to the topic of the wedding cake for gays....the baker was sticking to her religious beliefs fully knowing the penalties of the law, much like the early Christians under the Roman law.   The similarities is their faith.

There is NO SIMILARITY with Roman law and our law Tex!

 

I would believe that all this has been completely hashed out over and over and has become redundant.

Not quite Tex.

 

So Tex .... as there are certain evangelical/fundamentalists who believe that it is their duty to execute gay people, are their religious beliefs also being violated by secular law which prohibits taking the life of another person (murder)?

 

 


 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
888 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

 believe that it is their duty to execute gay people

 

 


 


No one is suggesting executing gays, nor anything similar.  Just that a person shouldn't be forced to violate their religious beliefs.  It violates their constitutional rights.  And one would doubt that the state can take away one persons rights to satisfy anothers.  Even in the small area where I live, there are multiple resources for bakery cakes including custom wedding cakes.

 

And regarding the rest of Romans Chapter one, the train of thought is to admonish the Roman Christians to not partake of the deeds listed.  And in doing so Paul gave a summary of what God expected but that man ignored.

 

It wasn't addressed to idol worshipers, but like the entire epistle to the Christians at Rome.  Read what it says in verse 7 and 8.  Nothing was said about idolaters.

 

The baker is apparently using that as a guide as her beliefs. 

0 Kudos
872 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.


You only "believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see", correct? Technically that is true with everyone. I am not "equating" anything, I asked a question which you failed to answer. No, it is not against the law. Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws. If you don't like the laws, try and get them changed. Again, if my religious beliefs justify me cutting off someone's hand it doesn't make it legal to do so.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
336 Views
8
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes of cutting off one's hand is being very hypocritical and deviating from the issue.

 

As far as your rejecting the scripture I furnished as not applying to one's belief in what way?

 

Using as a parallel about law, then you believe that the early Christians in Rome was wrong in not obeying Roman law to worship their gods?  Even to the extent of being soaked in oil and being used as human torches? 

 

You are basically saying that a person obeying the commands of the scripture I furnished isrequired to put man's laws over those of God?  Therefore the Romans were justified in their putting Christians to death for not worshiping their false gods?

 

 

0 Kudos
353 Views
7
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes of cutting off one's hand is being very hypocritical and deviating from the issue.

 

As far as your rejecting the scripture I furnished as not applying to one's belief in what way?

 

Using as a parallel about law, then you believe that the early Christians in Rome was wrong in not obeying Roman law to worship their gods?  Even to the extent of being soaked in oil and being used as human torches? 

 

You are basically saying that a person obeying the commands of the scripture I furnished isrequired to put man's laws over those of God?  Therefore the Romans were justified in their putting Christians to death for not worshiping their false gods?


An enormous false equivalency Tex ..... in a ludicrous attempt to equate Roman law with our laws!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
394 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes .........

 

 


And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
399 Views
5
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



 

And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


You're not following me around disputing everything I post?  And when does the law overrule the Constitution provisions of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  That has been continually ignored by the left throughout these discussions.

 

Just because a person enters into a business doesn't mean they give up their constitutional rights.  Even during the days of the draft there was provisions to either be exempt or given consideration and placed in a job to avoid combat.  I've been acquainted with many conscientious objectors who served in a non-combatant area.

 

This baker did the same since she couldn't honestly go against her beliefs.  But there are some here who isn't even happy about that and would want her to be forced to do so.  Wouldn't that make them sort of bigoted also?

 

Or is it that some here just wants to be argumentative and to get back at someone who has a contrary opinion?

0 Kudos
404 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



 

And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


You're not following me around disputing everything I post?  And when does the law overrule the Constitution provisions of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  That has been continually ignored by the left throughout these discussions.


You don't like being disputed or disagreed with, that is more than obvious. A political discussion forum is a bad place to be with that attitude. The Constitution doesn't provide for laws to be broken because of supposed religious beliefs that could very easily be defined as simple bigotry. That seems to have been ignored by the Right and so-called Independents throughout this discussion.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
866 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



The Constitution doesn't provide for laws to be broken because of supposed religious beliefs that could very easily be defined as simple bigotry. That seems to have been ignored by the Right and so-called Independents throughout this discussion.


So you are saying that the baker's religious beliefs could be defined as bigotry?  Are you saying that the first chapter of Romans does not cover what she believes?  Are you saying that you can dictate what is written there as simple bigotry?  What gives you the right to rewrite the words in the scriptures?

 

Are you saying that you are the decider as to what religious beliefs are authorized by the scriptures?

 

No, what has been said in this thread is basically covered by the New Testament scriptures.  It does appear that you have set yourself up as being more authoritative than the writings of the Apostles.

 

Additionally you are claiming that you are more an authority on the Constitution than anyone else.  What is in error of that phrase about not passing laws about establishing religion or hinder the free exercise thereof?

0 Kudos
864 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

 

Additionally you are claiming that you are more an authority on the Constitution than anyone else.  What is in error of that phrase about not passing laws about establishing religion or hinder the free exercise thereof?


I am not sure, nor do I care, about scriptures.  I do have a pretty good feel for right and wrong.  The baker went into business and the right thing to do is to serve all members of the public equally. 

 

 

852 Views
1
Report
Reply
Moderator
Moderator

Thanks everyone. This thread is now locked.

826 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

 


The topic is about law - Constitutional law of California and of the United States Of America - secular law only.

 

Attempting to inject religion into court deliberation and into the Supreme Law of the Land is an unpatriotic act.

 

 

44>dolt45
253 Views
18
Report
Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png