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.  
 

 

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s the same, but different. Why? 
 

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

 

Which to some is a religion. 

[daz28]

2 hours ago, LDD said:

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

The bible is a big enough book that through selective interpretation, one could probably find a way to back all kinds of discrimination quite easily.  I guess the Supreme Court will just handle these on a case per case basis, unless they just want to roll with the all selective interpretations matter principle.  

[B-Man]

 

 

MORE:

 

 

Custom printer has decided to deny service to Gays Against Groomers, saying they’re anti-LGBTQ

 

 

Wasn’t it just a week ago that liberals on Twitter were arguing that a Christian website designer was supposed to make a custom website for a same-sex wedding? That’s like denying service to someone because they’re black. In other words, bake the cake.

 

We’re learning Monday that Printful, a company that makes custom-printed gear like T-shirts and caps, has put out a statement that it had suspended Gays Against Groomers from using its services. “On the surface, this organization claims to protect children from abuse. However, after taking a closer look at their platform, we found the content they share is homophobic, transphobic misinformation that harms LGBTQ+ communities,” it wrote.

 

Gays Against Groomers is homophobic. “Let us be clear that we do not condone child abuse.”

 

 

OK, you want to be clear? Print some Gays Against Groomers T-shirts !

 

 

 

Denying service to a group composed of gays and lesbians? Where’s the outrage?

 

You may not agree with them, but Gays Against Groomers IS part of the LGBTQ community.

 

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/12/12/custom-printer-has-decided-to-deny-service-to-gays-against-groomers-saying-theyre-anti-lgbtq/

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

Which to some is a religion. 

Exactly!!  
 

At the risk of drawing the ire of some of our more socially conscious companions here…most successful government programs are based on the theory of the collective good, doing your part to help someone less fortunate, tithing on-an-it’s-never-quite-enough basis, making one believe they are inherently flawed or contributing to eternal damnation of the planetary/societal type. 
 

 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Exactly!!  
 

At the risk of drawing the ire of some of our more socially conscious companions here…most successful government programs are based on the theory of the collective good, doing your part to help someone less fortunate, tithing on-an-it’s-never-quite-enough basis, making one believe they are inherently flawed or contributing to eternal damnation of the planetary/societal type. 
 

 

 

What are these so called "successful" government programs?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What are these so called "successful" government programs?  

From my perspective, or theirs? 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

From my perspective, or theirs? 

 

Well yours seeing you mentioned it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well yours seeing you mentioned it. 

Welp, what I meant was successful from the perspective of the government.

 

I'd say the progressive income tax scale has been pretty successful for the US Government, in some cases convincing average Americans that up to 37% of one's income should be sent to the government for the greater good.  Or, where 37% is insufficient, and folks clamor for someone else to pay 40, 50+ %.  Or where people save money on tax today, fund an IRA, and pay tax on the money saved and the gain in the future.  Or when an individual saves some after-tax money, buys some stock and gets doinked with a Capital Gain tax. 

 

There's others....the Church of Climate Science...involvement in some foreign wars...and so on. 

 

 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

The bible is a big enough book that through selective interpretation, one could probably find a way to back all kinds of discrimination quite easily.  I guess the Supreme Court will just handle these on a case per case basis, unless they just want to roll with the all selective interpretations matter principle.  

 

Have to be careful if using the Bible.

Remember, the Bible consists of two completely separate books.

The Old Testament is the story of a culture, the Jews.

It contains a lot of rules, called "The Law," that applied only to that group.

 

The New Testament is the story of an individual, who fulfilled the law, and believers are no longer bound by Old Testament Jewish Law.

The guidance in the New Testament is quite different.

[Tiberius]

The ten commandments don't apply to Christians? 

 

Huh? 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

The ten commandments don't apply to Christians? 

 

Huh? 

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

[daz28]

7 hours 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.  

More importantly, let's tie this to housing discrimination.  The cake decision is based on:

 

Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, accepted this argument and said that forcing the baker to make a cake would be impermissible compelled speech. He wrote: “Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are ‘weddings’ and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to ‘bear witness to [these] fact[s],’ or to ‘affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees.’” 

 

Now, here's where the bible stands on homosexuality:

The Bible says: “Men who practice homosexuality . . . will not inherit God’s Kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10)

 

It seems that renting half your duplex, and witnessing this sin day in and day out, would be more of a sin than baking a cake for a wedding. 

 

If you want to really complicate this matter, look to conscientious objection to military draft, or even paying taxes that support a defense budget.  This is EXTREMELY more complex than the few nonsense posts here have even touched on.  

[daz28]

48 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

Just a note that what Jesus said is actually what Jesus was believed to have said AT LEAST 20 years after his death by the most conservative of estimates.  I find that the precision of the statements is AMAZINGLY concise, especially considering it was translated again to English in 1611.  

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

So the rules DO apply to Christians unlike what you said, 

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Have to be careful if using the Bible.

Remember, the Bible consists of two completely separate books.

The Old Testament is the story of a culture, the Jews.

It contains a lot of rules, called "The Law," that applied only to that group.

 

 

🤠

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So the rules DO apply to Christians unlike what you said, 

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

I know enough to call BS. 

 

That's all I need.  

[SoCal Deek]

I posed this to Chef yesterday but not sure that I got an answer. As an Architect and Christian should I be forced to design a synagogue or a mosque? Just like the baker, mine is a creative field. And just like the baker I’m not promoting or broadcasting a hatred for anyone by those actions. I’m just politely and privately telling the perspective client “no thank you”. (In real life I actually designed both.)

[Chef Jim]

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

Plot??  So it is a work of fiction. 😁

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I posed this to Chef yesterday but not sure that I got an answer. As an Architect and Christian should I be forced to design a synagogue or a mosque? Just like the baker, mine is a creative field. And just like the baker I’m not promoting or broadcasting a hatred for anyone by those actions. I’m just politely and privately telling the perspective client “no thank you”. (In real life I actually designed both.)

I'd say there is a major difference between the work involved in a cake and a religious structure, one is a major work of construction, the other is a simple cash and carry exchange. Are gays to be excluded from cash and carry businesses?