Christian Baker Fined & Silenced

[veritasluxmea]

Just my two cents... It's true I don't read every long post. It's true I tend to pay attention and spend more time reading more to people I tend to agree with.

However, I actually do pay attention to some debates and discussion on interesting issues, and I do read and think about a good number of people's arguments and opinions. I wouldn't say anything's completely changed my mind overnight, but it has contributed to forming my opinion and making me think carefully about issues and ideas. Yeah, one does have to be careful not to waste to much time on the internet (I'm on summer break and with my siblings gone for the summer, I have a lot of time on my hands even with my prayer, work, and study life taken care of. Unfortunately that's ending soon. Sigh.) Thinking and writing, even on the internet, are very mind forming tools, depending on how an individual person uses it. I wouldn't dismiss invigorating discussions as a complete waste of time, always. The responsibility's on you.

Edited July 11, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Peace]

Again, the government has powers, not rights.

Whichever word you prefer to use is perfectly fine by me. I think we both know what we are talking about.

You raise legitimate concerns, which is why I believe taxing and spending of public money should be limited to as little as necessary.

Well - which is it? Do you agree that the government has a right/power to force people to do things that conflict with their conscience or beliefs, or don't you?

But is making sure everybody must serve "gay weddings" a necessary national concern on the level of national security and defense?

Not to me it is not. To me national security is a much more important issue.

And that it trumps the right to free practice of religion and freedom of association.

Really??  

Seriously.  Please.

Seems someone's priorities are seriously out of whack.  (Particularly for one who claims to always by default side with the Bishops.)

I never said that it trumps the right to free practice of religion. I already wrote in this thread that freedom of religion is important to me, and that I think the bakers should not be forced to make a gay wedding cake. I wrote that not making the cake in this situation is discrimination, but it is a justifiable discrimination because it is done for religious reasons.

But coming up with a logical reason why they should be allowed to discriminate, and distinguishing that from other cases (such as racial discrimination) that (most of us at least) know are wrong is difficult. That is what I have been attempting to discuss here. To come up with good reasons why that position is right.

And I am not aware of anything the Catholic Bishops in the USA have written concerning the cake case. If you have something specific for me to look at please post the link and I will have a look at it. Otherwise I do not see how what you wrote would be relevant.

Not forcing people to assist a "gay marriage" with their business is a far cry from letting everyone "do whatever they want under any circumstances."

Agreed. In this thread we have been attempting to discuss the balance between religious/personal freedom and our obligations toward others as citizens in a democracy.

[Yaatee]

I would have to disagree. At the very least a just government possesses the right to rule.

From Immortale Dei:

"[...]Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."(1)

4. The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government.[...]"

 

 

 

And you are as condescending as ever, so it all evens out. ^_^ 

It's not condescension.   It's just my observation about the long debates. That they are a waste of time.  No one's minds are changed.  For students like lux, it's a different matter.  But for working people with families, obligations, a house, chores, errands, professional studies--it's a waste of time.

You are making an observation regarding me, because I refuse to cave.

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly I also have a family for whom I am responsible, such as it is, a demanding job, errands and chores, an apartment to take care of, and full time post secondary studies. Yet I do not find online discussions to he a waste of time. 

[veritasluxmea]

This is ridiculous. How does anyone evaluate whether someone participating in an internet discussion is a waste of time? Does someone have to be convinced for it to be valuable? What about lurkers? Organizing your thoughts? learning more about your subject? Entertainment? 

Look, the responsibility of using your time is on you. If you have evaluated yourself and find it an addiction that is a waste of time, then get off. But don't expect that to be the same story for everyone. 

[Peace]

This is ridiculous. How does anyone evaluate whether someone participating in an internet discussion is a waste of time? Does someone have to be convinced for it to be valuable? What about lurkers? Organizing your thoughts? learning more about your subject? Entertainment? 

Look, the responsibility of using your time is on you. If you have evaluated yourself and find it an addiction that is a waste of time, then get off. But don't expect that to be the same story for everyone. 

I think she just got a little frustrated. It happens to all of us.

[dUSt]

When I look at all those words.  You realize that you aren't going to change anyone's mind?  

You might want to ask the Vice President and Program Director of St Paul Street Evangelization about that. He came to phatmass as a Baptist.

http://streetevangelization.com/

 

[Yaatee]

I think she just got a little frustrated. It happens to all of us.

Peace, you're so nice.  Always making Peace.

Interestingly I also have a family for whom I am responsible, such as it is, a demanding job, errands and chores, an apartment to take care of, and full time post secondary studies. Yet I do not find online discussions to he a waste of time. 

Apartment?!  Not a house?  (Just joking).  Seriously, houses eat up time AND money!

I think that the real time wasters, for me anyway, are the lo-o-ng posts. There's always that editing, spelling, typos, etc. 

 

[Socrates]

 . . . 

I never said that it trumps the right to free practice of religion. I already wrote in this thread that freedom of religion is important to me, and that I think the bakers should not be forced to make a gay wedding cake. I wrote that not making the cake in this situation is discrimination, but it is a justifiable discrimination because it is done for religious reasons.

But coming up with a logical reason why they should be allowed to discriminate, and distinguishing that from other cases (such as racial discrimination) that (most of us at least) know are wrong is difficult. That is what I have been attempting to discuss here. To come up with good reasons why that position is right.

I apologize if I misunderstood, but it looked to me like you were tying yourself in knots trying to defend the decision against the bakery owners.

I (and others) have already made the point that persons should be free to avoid providing their services for any event they choose not to support, but at this point, the debate is just going in circles.

Of course, it would help if judges stuck to simply upholding the law as it exists, rather than making wild extrapolations based on "emanations" and "penumbras" to essentially create new laws to their liking.

 

And I am not aware of anything the Catholic Bishops in the USA have written concerning the cake case. If you have something specific for me to look at please post the link and I will have a look at it. Otherwise I do not see how what you wrote would be relevant.

I don't know if they said anything specifically about the cake issue, but the Bishops have been pretty consistent in upholding religious freedom in similar issues, including opposing the contraception mandate of Obamacare, so I'll let you connect the dots.  The Church has also always opposed the whole idea of legal "gay marriage," so if the Bishops are opposed to "gay marriage," it would make little sense for them to support people being forced against their wills to bake cakes for said "marriages."

 

Agreed. In this thread we have been attempting to discuss the balance between religious/personal freedom and our obligations toward others as citizens in a democracy.

We have absolutely no obligations to give any kind of support to "gay marriages" or other immoral activities of others.

[Peace]

We have absolutely no obligations to give any kind of support to "gay marriages" or other immoral activities of others.

But therein lies the question I think. Selling someone a cake (or paper towels or cups) need not be seen as supporting the purpose for which the cake (or paper towels or cups) are ultimately used.

You could deny a gay couple the right to sit down and eat at your restaurant if you take the above principal to an extreme. I think the question we have been trying to figure out is - where is an appropriate place to draw the line?

[Socrates]

But therein lies the question I think. Selling someone a cake (or paper towels or cups) need not be seen as supporting the purpose for which the cake (or paper towels or cups) are ultimately used.

You could deny a gay couple the right to sit down and eat at your restaurant if you take the above principal to an extreme. I think the question we have been trying to figure out is - where is an appropriate place to draw the line?

You can quibble all day, but the line certainly should have been drawn long before we have peaceful business owners forced at gunpoint to provide for homosexual "weddings," or else lose their business and livelihood.

The denial of religious liberty can also be "taken to extremes," (thought this current sad farce is already "extreme" enough, imo).

At any rate, this recent travesty of a SCOTUS decision opened up a really ugly can of worms.  It's not the end of the conflict; it's only the beginning.

[Gabriela]

For someone who doesn't follow news closely (err, at all), could someone please explain to me what Josh meant when he said that the Christian couple lied?

[Ice_nine]

For someone who doesn't follow news closely (err, at all), could someone please explain to me what Josh meant when he said that the Christian couple lied?

I read something that said the reason they were fined was not because they denied to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding but because they published the lesbian couple's address and the couple as getting hate mail and such.

Then I read an article that said that wasn't accurate

So in summation, . . . IDK

[Peace]

I read something that said the reason they were fined was not because they denied to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding but because they published the lesbian couple's address and the couple as getting hate mail and such.

Then I read an article that said that wasn't accurate

So in summation, . . . IDK

You're clueless.

[Didacus]

You're clueless.

't that what he meant with 'IDK'?

[Ice_nine]

't that what he meant with 'IDK'?

OM.G even with alicia silverstone holding shopping bags as my avatar I'm still a he? Madness.

I guess I'm just gonna have to take Cotillion classes.

Unless you just made a typo . . . . in which case I'm overreacting

[Didacus]

Not your fault - I'm just as clueless as you if not even more. 

[Luigi]

OM.G even with alicia silverstone holding shopping bags as my avatar I'm still a he? Madness.

I guess I'm just gonna have to take Cotillion classes.

Unless you just made a typo . . . . in which case I'm overreacting

Tweak your name to Ice-Nina,... or Ice-Tina... of Ice-T-na?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Luigi

[CrossCuT]

Not your fault - I'm just as clueless as you if not even more. 

I see what you did there

[Didacus]

I see what you did there

hmmmm 

 

nope - i'm still clueless. Sorry