Not discrimination to refuse cake sale.

[Chef Jim]

43 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Not that I care, but refusing to provide a catering service at somebody else's location is entirely different than refusing to serve them in your restaraunt and making that decision very close to the time of the reservation, claiming you were concerned about the safety of your wait staff.

Give me a break.

 

Why is how/where the product/service is delivered factor into this?  

 

At the end of the day, to me, refusing to serve anyone because you disagree with their lifestyle/politics is incredibly childish.  But that's just me. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Why is how/where the product/service is delivered factor into this?  

 

At the end of the day, to me, refusing to serve anyone because you disagree with their lifestyle/politics is incredibly childish.  But that's just me. 

You’re old enough by now to know that yep….it’s just you. 😉

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re old enough by now to know that yep….it’s just you. 😉

 

Then it appears no one has done a good job explaining the difference between these two incidents.  Cake?  Restaurant reservations?  Both are denying service based on the ideology of the business. One appears to be ok the other does not...even in my brain.  So why is this?  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

Then it appears no one has done a good job explaining the difference between these two incidents.  Cake?  Restaurant reservations?  Both are denying service based on the ideology of the business. One appears to be ok the other does not...even in my brain.  So why is this?  

Because it’s you being you. Have you honestly not noticed a pattern here Chef? 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Because it’s you being you. Have you honestly not noticed a pattern here Chef? 

 

That people refuse to engage in meaningful discussion by answering questions?  Yup.  Sorry I ruffle feathers but it's what I do in my quest to better understand.  

[LDD]

It seems apparent to me that the only sin in the bible is that of being gay.  Just imagine if there were actually other sins in the bible and religious businesses refused offering services or support to other "apparent" sinners...that would be a mess🙄

 

What if the bible had something called, eh, I don't know, THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS ( lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, wrath, envy, pride) and made a big point out of how those sins really helped evil flourish in the world. Nobody would be able to do a darn thing anywhere for the exchange of goods or services.  Good thing NO OTHER sins exist anywhere in the bible but that of the errant seed dropper or whatever.  

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

More info . . . . . 

 

Freedom OF Religion

 

 

Court: Catholic hospitals can't be forced to perform "gender transition" surgeries

 

On Friday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a federal judge in North Dakota who said that the federal government can not force a group of Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform “gender transition” surgeries. While the government will likely take this to the Supreme Court at some point, this case may offer a tentative first step toward curbing the transgender madness currently engulfing the nation’s healthcare system. The basis for the ruling is a bit odd, at least as I see it, but you take your victories where you can get them. This ruling also renews a standing debate over certain provisions in Obamacare that have been wildly twisted in recent years to redefine “sex” and “gender” to suit progressive activists. (Reuters)

 

The Biden administration cannot force a group of Catholic healthcare providers and professionals to perform gender transition surgeries under an Obama-era regulation barring sex discrimination in healthcare, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.

 

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a North Dakota federal judge who said the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule infringes on the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs, including a group of nuns who run health clinics for the poor and an association of Catholic healthcare professionals.

 

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit came to the same conclusion in August in a case brought by Christian medical groups.

 

The courts have thus far ruled in this case based on an assumed violation of the religious freedom of the plaintiffs. That struck me as rather odd, as I suggested above. I’ve never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but I don’t recall reading anything in the Good Book about gender transition. And fighting battles like this one on a religious basis will only polarize the topic further in my opinion.

 

What this debate should really focus on is basic science, and thankfully there was some of that included in the ruling as well. An attorney for the plaintiffs issued a statement saying that the ruling will “protect patients and ensure doctors can follow their oath to do no harm.”

 

That’s an important aspect of the debate. This isn’t simply a matter of the unscientific belief that a person who was clearly born as one gender can somehow “transition” and become the opposite gender. Genital mutilation surgeries, particularly for the male-to-female variety, literally create an open wound on the patient’s body that will need to be tended to for the rest of their lives. That’s one reason a director from Boston Children’s Hospital said in a now-deleted video that these “treatments” can create lucrative opportunities to ensure return business for decades to come. Creating such a wound flies directly in the face of the “first do no harm” credo.

 

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/12/12/court-catholic-hospitals-cant-be-forced-to-perform-gender-transition-surgeries-n517179

[Chef Jim]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

More info . . . . . 

 

Freedom OF Religion

 

 

Court: Catholic hospitals can't be forced to perform "gender transition" surgeries

 

On Friday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a federal judge in North Dakota who said that the federal government can not force a group of Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform “gender transition” surgeries. While the government will likely take this to the Supreme Court at some point, this case may offer a tentative first step toward curbing the transgender madness currently engulfing the nation’s healthcare system. The basis for the ruling is a bit odd, at least as I see it, but you take your victories where you can get them. This ruling also renews a standing debate over certain provisions in Obamacare that have been wildly twisted in recent years to redefine “sex” and “gender” to suit progressive activists. (Reuters)

 

The Biden administration cannot force a group of Catholic healthcare providers and professionals to perform gender transition surgeries under an Obama-era regulation barring sex discrimination in healthcare, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.

 

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a North Dakota federal judge who said the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule infringes on the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs, including a group of nuns who run health clinics for the poor and an association of Catholic healthcare professionals.

 

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit came to the same conclusion in August in a case brought by Christian medical groups.

 

The courts have thus far ruled in this case based on an assumed violation of the religious freedom of the plaintiffs. That struck me as rather odd, as I suggested above. I’ve never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but I don’t recall reading anything in the Good Book about gender transition. And fighting battles like this one on a religious basis will only polarize the topic further in my opinion.

 

What this debate should really focus on is basic science, and thankfully there was some of that included in the ruling as well. An attorney for the plaintiffs issued a statement saying that the ruling will “protect patients and ensure doctors can follow their oath to do no harm.”

 

That’s an important aspect of the debate. This isn’t simply a matter of the unscientific belief that a person who was clearly born as one gender can somehow “transition” and become the opposite gender. Genital mutilation surgeries, particularly for the male-to-female variety, literally create an open wound on the patient’s body that will need to be tended to for the rest of their lives. That’s one reason a director from Boston Children’s Hospital said in a now-deleted video that these “treatments” can create lucrative opportunities to ensure return business for decades to come. Creating such a wound flies directly in the face of the “first do no harm” credo.

 

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/12/12/court-catholic-hospitals-cant-be-forced-to-perform-gender-transition-surgeries-n517179

 

This is similar but also very different but maybe we can connect the dots.  If I had a client who said they wanted to invest all their money in FTX and I said "no! That's financial suicide!!" it's their money and I'd have to make the trade.  In the case above it's the person's body but the hospital refuses to perform a surgery the patient demands.  Religious belief is very powerful. 

[Chef Jim]

28 minutes ago, LDD said:

It seems apparent to me that the only sin in the bible is that of being gay.  Just imagine if there were actually other sins in the bible and religious businesses refused offering services or support to other "apparent" sinners...that would be a mess🙄

 

What if the bible had something called, eh, I don't know, THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS ( lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, wrath, envy, pride) and made a big point out of how those sins really helped evil flourish in the world. Nobody would be able to do a darn thing anywhere for the exchange of goods or services.  Good thing NO OTHER sins exist anywhere in the bible but that of the errant seed dropper or whatever.  

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying and agreed with it at first.  The difference is if the bakeshop bakes a cake for a convicted murderer to celebrate his release of prison the are not participating in the sin of murder.  However baking a cake for the wedding is participating in the sin of homosexuality.   It's a big difference.  

[B-Man]

21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

  In the case above it's the person's body but the hospital refuses to perform a surgery the patient demands. 

 

 

No reply needed.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

No reply needed.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I would benefit from a response.  Why can a hospital refuse a patient's demands?  I know this is your background so I'm curious.  

[SoCal Deek]

57 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

That people refuse to engage in meaningful discussion by answering questions?  Yup.  Sorry I ruffle feathers but it's what I do in my quest to better understand.  

This entire message board is devoted to discussion but if you haven’t figured out by now, people’s faith walk is deeply personal. Just because you’re quick to mock others choices doesn’t mean we all have to.

 

In my line of work I designed many churches of all denominations, along with a synagogue and Islamic school. That was my CHOICE. But should I have been forced to design them? No, I shouldn’t have. Everyone needs to give each other a little space. 

[nedboy7]

Lot's of opinions on here.  All of them deserving of being discusses.  I found this article by the ABA interesting from a strict legal standpoint. 

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/

 

 

As to the former, the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) seemingly answers the question. That case involved Native Americans in Oregon who argued that a state law prohibiting consumption of peyote infringed their free exercise of religion. They said that their religion required use of peyote in religious rituals. 

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled against the Native Americans and concluded that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral in that it was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion and because it applied to everyone in the state. The Court held that the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge such a neutral law of general applicability. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the claim that free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid law. Scalia said that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia thus declared “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Edited December 12, 2022 by nedboy7

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

This entire message board is devoted to discussion but if you haven’t figured out by now, people’s faith walk is deeply personal. Just because you’re quick to mock others choices doesn’t mean we all have to.

 

In my line of work I designed many churches of all denominations, along with a synagogue and Islamic school. That was my CHOICE. But should I have been forced to design them? No, I shouldn’t have. Everyone needs to give each other a little space. 

 

Mock?? Where have I mocked anyone's personal choices?  As a matter of fact I have stated I only have respect for those who believe.  All I've done is point out what appears to be a hypocrisy in your thoughts.  You ask to be given a little space but want a gay couple to come up with "their" own word to describe the exact same thing my wife and I have been a part of for nearly 40 years.  Kind of goes against we are all equal in the eyes of God.  But again.....that's just me. 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Mock?? Where have I mocked anyone's personal choices?  As a matter of fact I have stated I only have respect for those who believe.  All I've done is point out what appears to be a hypocrisy in your thoughts.  You ask to be given a little space but want a gay couple to come up with "their" own word to describe the exact same thing my wife and I have been a part of for nearly 40 years.  Kind of goes against we are all equal in the eyes of God.  But again.....that's just me. 

I’d say calling the Bible a fairy tale is pretty much pure mockery but that’s just me. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’d say calling the Bible a fairy tale is pretty much pure mockery but that’s just me. 

 

The fact that I don't think everything in the Bible actually happened in mockery?   Again with the hypocrisy. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The fact that I don't think everything in the Bible actually happened in mockery?   Again with the hypocrisy. 

Once again….you being you. It’s what we love about you. 

[LDD]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I understand what you're saying and agreed with it at first.  The difference is if the bakeshop bakes a cake for a convicted murderer to celebrate his release of prison the are not participating in the sin of murder.  However baking a cake for the wedding is participating in the sin of homosexuality.   It's a big difference.  

If they bake a big cake for an obese couple are they complicit in the sin of gluttony??

[Chef Jim]

13 minutes ago, LDD said:

If they bake a big cake for an obese couple are they complicit in the sin of gluttony??

 

***** you!!!   Eating cake is NOT gluttonous.  How dare you!! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

This is similar but also very different but maybe we can connect the dots.  If I had a client who said they wanted to invest all their money in FTX and I said "no! That's financial suicide!!" it's their money and I'd have to make the trade.  In the case above it's the person's body but the hospital refuses to perform a surgery the patient demands.  Religious belief is very powerful. 

It’s the same, but different. Why? 
 

Because it is. Religious faith is powerful. So is the US Government.