We knew this was coming. Now the moment has arrived. Looks like bakers may beat the bishops to jail, though.
Two gay men in Colorado won discrimination claims against a bakery that refused to sell them a wedding cake, beating back the business owner’s argument that he had the constitutional right to decline service to a gay couple for religious reasons.
The judge’s ruling is a victory for all. It places what should be a common goal, social harmony, above the narrow, divisive interests of a few. No one, nor any religion or religious person has the right to sow discord.
What’s really interesting is that Colorado’s constitution clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman (amendment 43 I think). The abomination of civil unions was passed by the legislature last year despite that fact.
So the baker can’t stand up to support what is already defined in the state constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXCERSISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Declaration of Independence
We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Seems to me the courts have overstepped their bounds in at least 4 areas.
Amazing, first they force healthcare on folks. Now they want to tell you who you have to work for.
“I see clouds which now rise thick and fast upon our horizon, the thunders roll, and the lightnings play, and to that God who rides on the whirlwind and directs the storm, I commit my country.”
Josiah Quincy Jr. 1773 Boston
Wrong. Social harmony is not the common goal of Christians first. Its peace with God and repentance of sins.
THe only true peace will come from persons getting their life in order with the true God. Not this brotherhood of man, nonsense that came from the French Revolution.
Peace with God first, then one is capable of promoting peace with neighbor.
It is blindness to think, that that Christian man was sowing discord. He is the one who was targeted.
As for the gay activist movement there have been many who have deliberately put themselves in these situations to manipulate the courts. Anyone with enough knowledge of how our Court System works and the template of the civil rights movement in the 20th century, knows how that is now being used by gay activists for the sake of an unjust cause…
Also this idea that social harmony is the ‘highest good’ comes from false compassion and false tolerance; it promotes a mentality which does not understand Christ.
For Christ said, he did not come to bring PEACE, but a SWORD. There will always be that choice to choose against him, and as long as some choose Christ, and some choose love for sin, no FAITHFUL Christian should expect some pie in the sky, ideal of “social harmony” under lack of understanding of America and why as it currently is, undergoing its culturally collapse and its divisions.
As long as there is an embrace of sin by men, sanctioned and approved by the state and its collective Culture, there will NEVER BE social harmony.
The brotherhood of man, social harmony nonsense, is that of promoting everyone to be complicit with Sin and falsehoods. There is no real truth under it. And as sin destroys the individual, it causes him and other individuals to despair, and disposes them to worse sins, like murder, greed, and unjust treatment of its neighbor.
Read the book of Maccabees. This man is not the one sowing discord. And the Courts, the media, act no different than the Greeks.
above the narrow, divisive interests of a few.
The minority is oppressing the majority. Those with money to back this godless movement , constitute the few, not the many.
If yelling ‘fire!’ In a crowded theatre was a religious exercise, would it be permitted? No. Likewise the right to religious conviction ends when it harms other people in society, or society itself. All rights have limits, not just religious rights. That’s the cold hard fact. The line has been appropriately drawn in this case.
A wedding cake is not part of a wedding ceremony. A business in that state can not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If you are going to serve the public you must follow the law. No different then if they refused a cake to a mixed race couple wanting to buy a cake.
Wrong, in this country(unless you do away with constitution), the baker has the right to work for whom he wishes, anything else is denies him his GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and would be in fact, government forced servitude.
Legally enforced social harmony without Truth is tyranny. Everything was harmonious in Stepford. That doesn’t mean you want to live there. (OK, so I haven’t read the book, but my Mom did when it came out and it stuck with her, so we have talked about it.)
If social harmony is to be placed above the narrow, divisive interests of a few gay-marriage advocates, are you OK with that? Or is it only divisive if you disagree with it?
And I’m not sure “social harmony” is even meaningful. If we have to give up all of the rights that allow us to be to be different from other people, or to have different beliefs than other people (religious beliefs or any other kind) to have social harmony, you can keep it.
But if a businessman can’t say, “I’m sorry–I’d love to serve you for any other occasion, like a birthday, but because of my beliefs I don’t make cakes for that sort of occasion,” then indeed, the government is way too much in our lives.
What is more harmful to someone, that they have to choose another baker, or that they have to choose another career? Why is approval of gay marriage a pre-requisite for a career in confectionary?
The right of the individual to not be discriminated against just for being of a particular class is more important than the right to freely discriminate. Remember, the same logic protects a Catholic, whose beliefs on homosexuality are objectionable I many gay people, from being discriminated against by a gay person on the basis of being Catholic.
Yes, it’s actually really different. If he was asked to do a birthday cake for a gay person he would likely have had no objection. But a wedding cake probably involves extra wedding-related work such as putting two men on the top. Also, there is no harming anyone in refusing a gay couple. I am sure there were countless other bakers happy to make a cake for them if they had changed bakers.
In refusing, the baker committed no ‘discord’. In taking him to court, the gay couple did.
What if they were too busy that day to take on any more orders. Can these people level accusations against anyone at anytime and there will be blood? Such as the “no tip” hoax.
What if two people walk into a bakery and the baker is tired that day and doesn’t want the business after all, is someone going to put a gun to his head and say “bake!” What if he calls in sick for a week? We are not slaves.
“We refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason” end of story say nothing else. It is your property, your investment, your life, you do not have to expend your life force in the service of anyone, period, unless you are a slave. You don’t have to say “I refuse to do this based on religious beliefs.” Just don’t do it, maybe that day your ovens are slow or you have a back log that would mean weeks of delays. Be smarter than these infiltrators.
Some of them obviously are looking for ways to make headlines. Don’t be the headline.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.