Staying Sharp empowers you to take control of your brain health as you age. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

225 Views
Message 41 of 156

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



It was intended to be a little snarky, thank you for noticing.

 

 


Why should I answer a post that was intended to be snarky?  Wouldn't that indicate that you are not interested in serious discussions?  

 

And why should I answer anyone who DEMANDS an answer?  


You have shown that you cannot quote a scripture which says it is wrong or a sin for a baker to create and sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.  Thank you for being so clear about it.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
225
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
233
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

233 Views
Message 42 of 156

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:




 

I note that you have never posted any scripture to back up your claims about teachings.

Not true Tex.

But DO NOTE that YOU have often referenced irrelevant Scripture, interpreted Scripture incorrectly and referenced Scripture that was never there!


Ok, then point out the instances where you have. 

There are no instances where "I have" Tex.

 

Most of what you keep posting is obfuscation of what is posting instead of references. 

The references were all asked of YOU Tex. And you failed to provide any!

 

 

If you are as much of a scholar to refute others posts, then you should be able to provide verses to back your claim up.

The "claim" was made by YOU Tex .... YOUR "claim" that the New Testament sanctions discrimination against gay people!  A "claim" you fail to back up with any references!

 

No, I submit that you have no idea of biblical references. 

I submit that you have no idea as to what YOU are talking about!

 

Show some valid proof of your claims instead of attempting to obfuscate.

Once again Tex, the "claims" are YOURS.

YOUR "claim":

And while you're at it you might read up in Paul's epistles about Christian's deploring and avoiding certain types of conduct while being concerned about the person themselves. 

 

And I responded with:

An enormously nebulous response Tex.

What conduct?

What epistles Tex?

What Chapter and verse Tex? 

 

 

 

Bye.  (Again?)

I.E.:  You are unable to provide any references to your "claims"  ..... and still continue to refuse answering questions posed to you while you demand that other posters answer your questions!


 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
233
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
238
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

238 Views
Message 43 of 156

@myexper wrote:




 

I note that you have never posted any scripture to back up your claims about teachings.

Not true Tex.

But DO NOTE that YOU have often referenced irrelevant Scripture, interpreted Scripture incorrectly and referenced Scripture that was never there!


Ok, then point out the instances where you have.  Most of what you keep posting is obfuscation of what is posting instead of references.  If you are as much of a scholar to refute others posts, then you should be able to provide verses to back your claim up.

 

No, I submit that you have no idea of biblical references.  Show some valid proof of your claims instead of attempting to obfuscate. 

 

Bye.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
238
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
224
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

224 Views
Message 44 of 156

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:


 

I note that you have never posted any scripture to back up your claims about teachings.

Not true Tex.

But DO NOTE that YOU have often referenced irrelevant Scripture, interpreted Scripture incorrectly and referenced Scripture that was never there!

 


 

 


 


 Ok, show where you have.  And why not quote the verses you claim I've referenced wrong.  It means nothing that you claim I've been referencing them wrong.  Post them or forget about claiming anything.



Answer ALL the questions that were posed TO YOU FIRST Tex!

 

You conveniently truncated my post to leave out ALL the questions that were posed to YOU FIRST Tex ..... evading them and refusing to answer them. As usual, you demand that others answer your questions while you refuse to answer any questions posed to you!

 

So .... let's include what you conveniently omitted:

@you wrote:

And while you're at it you might read up in Paul's epistles about Christian's deploring and avoiding certain types of conduct while being concerned about the person themselves. 

And I responded with:

An enormously nebulous response Tex.

What conduct?

What epistles Tex?

What Chapter and verse Tex? 

 

Please answer the questions posed to you FIRST Tex ..... before demanding that other posters answer your questions!!!!

 

And BTW, an even earlier question from me and other posters that you still refuse to answer:

Where in the New Testament does it say to discriminate against gay people?

 

 

 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
224
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
217
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

217 Views
Message 45 of 156

@GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66

I completely agree with you here.  I cannot even phantom why the baker would have even given any explanation since a "No, can't do it" should have been good enough.  A contract is between two forces, either can say no.  Any reason would just be secondary and not really important unless the two parties want to continue negotiations and then again, it is up to them ONLY.

 

I do not see that any court of whatever hierarchy would get in the middle of this.

 

Refusing to sell or rent something is a completely different thing than agreeing or not to create a specific thing.

 

 


By George, I think she's got it!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
217
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

231 Views
Message 46 of 156

Hello everyone,

Please remember to post according to the community guidelines, and refrain from insults and inflammatory comments.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
231
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
242
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

242 Views
Message 47 of 156

@Olderscout66

I completely agree with you here.  I cannot even phantom why the baker would have even given any explanation since a "No, can't do it" should have been good enough.  A contract is between two forces, either can say no.  Any reason would just be secondary and not really important unless the two parties want to continue negotiations and then again, it is up to them ONLY.

 

I do not see that any court of whatever hierarchy would get in the middle of this.

 

Refusing to sell or rent something is a completely different thing than agreeing or not to create a specific thing.

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
242
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
252
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

252 Views
Message 48 of 156

@rker321 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

@rker321 wrote:

  

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


To me, this seems to be a hard decision because it involves a business persons talent, ability and DESIRE to perform a service as opposed to an already made object.  How could the SCOTUS ever force them to do it?

 

I will again quote what the Ca.county superior court judge said in his ruling on this matter - from the link in my intial post starting this thread.

 

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."

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.

 

It is one thing to require one person to do the same thing to every individual when that item is real but here we are talking about something that isn't real yet but has to be created and creations are always based on the abilities, talents and desires of the maker or refused for whatever reason.

 

I am not sure that it is within the ability of even the SCOTUS to determine how this could be forced.

 

 


Gail  your opinion on this subject, Is one that I don't know if I am ready to agree with.  I see two issues that the court will have to decide. One is discrimination of a business against a particular type of customer. and the other how much in this particular case is Religion imposing themselves into the secular life of this country.  So, again, I do see the Supreme Court dealing with this issue and then they will clarify, the limits of how much Religion  is separate from the State. and clarify as to how much can a business discriminate  a certain type of customer.

 


rker321 - Think you're missing the point. The Judge is not saying the baker can discriminate over what customer she serves based on their sexual orientation, he's just pointing out that she's an "artist" and there is no reasonable way to force an "artist" to produce "art" according to the customer's specifications - it's a very well established tenet of law relating to "personal services contracts". If she had cakes for sale on display, and refused to let the gay couple take one off the shelf, that would be unconstitutional discrimination. But to refuse to make one to their specifications is another matter entirely, and there is no way she can be compelled to product a "work of her art" that will satisfy the gay couple's specs, which is what the Judge said in the later ruling.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
252
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
250
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

250 Views
Message 49 of 156

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker

 

Your post has no bearing on the topic and only gives you the chance to become as was termed in the military a  'guardhouse lawyer'..  While also quoting various court decisions of doubtful contributing to the topic.

 

As far as Melania, the rumor is that she sleeps in a separate bedroom therefore your signature line would be incorrect.


Yeah Tex, but since the $130,000 payment to a hooker turned up, Melina sleeps in a separate STATE from POTUS the Worm.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
250
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
250
Views

Re: Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

250 Views
Message 50 of 156

@GailL1 wrote:

@rker321 wrote:

  

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


To me, this seems to be a hard decision because it involves a business persons talent, ability and DESIRE to perform a service as opposed to an already made object.  How could the SCOTUS ever force them to do it?

 

I will again quote what the Ca.county superior court judge said in his ruling on this matter - from the link in my intial post starting this thread.

 

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."

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.

 

It is one thing to require one person to do the same thing to every individual when that item is real but here we are talking about something that isn't real yet but has to be created and creations are always based on the abilities, talents and desires of the maker or refused for whatever reason.

 

I am not sure that it is within the ability of even the SCOTUS to determine how this could be forced.

 

 


Gail  your opinion on this subject, Is one that I don't know if I am ready to agree with.  I see two issues that the court will have to decide. One is discrimination of a business against a particular type of customer. and the other how much in this particular case is Religion imposing themselves into the secular life of this country.  So, again, I do see the Supreme Court dealing with this issue and then they will clarify, the limits of how much Religion  is separate from the State. and clarify as to how much can a business discriminate  a certain type of customer.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
250
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors