Colorado Baker Sued for Refusing Gender Transition Cake

[supsalemgr]

I'm going to try to clarify because there seems to be confusion. There are two things I am referring to here. One is a marriage ceremony which takes place involving a pastor, for example.  There is absolutely no need for government in order to perform those ceremonies. Gays have been doing church ceremonies for years before gay marriage became legal. Polygamists have also been doing church marriage ceremonies for decades. If a group of Christians existed on a deserted island, where there was literally no government, they could perform marriage ceremonies all day everyday, however they wished.

The other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

"What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people."

I cannot disagree with this post. However, the left totally disregards this policy on government when the situation does not fit the leftists' agenda.

[T Hunt]

I'm going to try to clarify because there seems to be confusion. There are two things I am referring to here. One is a marriage ceremony which takes place involving a pastor, for example.  There is absolutely no need for government in order to perform those ceremonies. Gays have been doing church ceremonies for years before gay marriage became legal. Polygamists have also been doing church marriage ceremonies for decades. If a group of Christians existed on a deserted island, where there was literally no government, they could perform marriage ceremonies all day everyday, however they wished.

The other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

If the states gonna use the same word then it will of course mean the same thing.

So thats where you go wrong. Thinking the state part of marriage is supposed to be non religious. Where do you get that idea? The state only ever started recording marriages as a record of a religiously and legally binding ceremony. As in alot of places the law and religious principles overlap. Thats the not being free FROM religion part.

See the constitution leaves moral and religious questions to the states, as it should be. Did you know that the constitution actually allows for state churches? Thats right the states can legally have state run churches and some did at one point.

States very much can and should be involved with religious things. If the religions are all hating each other then each religion could have its own state. You could have a Muslim run state, on the state level. But in reality most religions get along just fine because many religious principles are rather universal. Even christian dominated states tend to live and let live on issues not harmful to the nation.

What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

If an individual state wants to do that, its free to do so. But most dont because that doesnt represent either their culture or good governance, and the feds dont even need to be part of this issue.

[Solar]

If the states gonna use the same word then it will of course mean the same thing.

So thats where you go wrong. Thinking the state part of marriage is supposed to be non religious. Where do you get that idea? The state only ever started recording marriages as a record of a religiously and legally binding ceremony. As in alot of places the law and religious principles overlap. Thats the not being free FROM religion part.

See the constitution leaves moral and religious questions to the states, as it should be. Did you know that the constitution actually allows for state churches? Thats right the states can legally have state run churches and some did at one point.

States very much can and should be involved with religious things. If the religions are all hating each other then each religion could have its own state. You could have a Muslim run state, on the state level. But in reality most religions get along just fine because many religious principles are rather universal. Even christian dominated states tend to live and let live on issues not harmful to the nation.

If an individual state wants to do that, its free to do so. But most dont because that doesnt represent either their culture or good governance, and the feds dont even need to be part of this issue.

He is the result of schools not teaching American History, otherwise, he'd never have dived in headfirst into this subject.
He literally has no idea why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place. But I guarantee you, he's reading as fast as he can now.  

[ZenMode]

"What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people."

I cannot disagree with this post. However, the left totally disregards this policy on government when the situation does not fit the leftists' agenda.

I'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

[Possum]

He came into this thinking Govt created marriage.    

See how much he is learning?

But look at how much we have aged teaching him. 

[Possum]

I'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

Zen, this isn't hard to understand.

  The people who want the government involved in marriage are the very same ones who want religion to change the definition of marriage. The very same people who want to see religion just go away are the very same people who want the government involved in your marriage. These are the very same people who when they demand a special cake to be baked for them will call upon the government to force someone to bake it for them. These are the very same people who want the government involved in every aspect of your life, and who demand the government TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. These are the people who want the government to decide that you do not "need" a AR15. Do you get it yet? Stop acting like you do not know who these people are, I believe you are one of them.

[T Hunt]

I'm not concerned with Left/Right.

Well theres your problem, you refuse to see the world for what it is, a fight of good vs evil.

I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Yes its very odd that you want the govt to get involved by forcing a new definition onto everyone. Very odd indeed that you want MORE govt.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

Right, people with no principles will want to use it only for their side. But people of principle, like conservatives, are constituent and want the govt to always be small. Thats why conservatives take the position that requires LESS govt, the position of normalcy.

So odd that you would say you want less govt but then push for govt to step in on marriage....so odd....

[T Hunt]

Zen, this isn't hard to understand.

  The people who want the government involved in marriage are the very same ones who want religion to change the definition of marriage. The very same people who want to see religion just go away are the very same people who want the government involved in your marriage. These are the very same people who when they demand a special cake to be baked for them will call upon the government to force someone to bake it for them. These are the very same people who want the government involved in every aspect of your life, and who demand the government TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. These are the people who want the government to decide that you do not "need" a AR15. Do you get it yet? Stop acting like you do not know who these people are, I believe you are one of them.

Ya he says he wants less govt but then takes one position after another that requires big govt. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Solar]

 

But look at how much we have aged teaching him. 

 
Aw, but it's worth it.

Because he isn't the only one reading these, there are a whole lot of other people just now learning about why we have a Bill of Rights, and how important it is, not to fuck with it by starting a cascade effect of losing our country.

I think it's just starting to hit him, that the B of R was written to hinder govt, that these were actual barriers placed against govt.
Or the fact that, it was God that gave us these inalienable Rights, not the Govt.

For all those reading outside the forum, this may help.


God (Supreme Being). Above all govt!

Inalienable Rights...(Not subject to forfeiture)

GOVT. (By And For The People}

[Solar]

I'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

At this point in time, you have to be!
One side wants to destroy the govt, including much of the GOP helping the left.
But on the Right, we have a Constitution that bars the left outright!

So either pick a side or you won't have any Rights left to bitch about!

[ZenMode]

At this point in time, you have to be!
One side wants to destroy the govt, including much of the GOP helping the left.
But on the Right, we have a Constitution that bars the left outright!

So either pick a side or you won't have any Rights left to bitch about!

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

[Possum]

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

there is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

[Solar]

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Your emotions get in the way of critical thought, the ability to see consequence, to understand cause an effect, ever action, having a reaction.

This is the backbone of society, the adhering to a set of values handed down over millennial of tried and true challenges.
This is why culture adopted the Ten Commandments. You know, murder and all that shit?

Oh wait, while you're Hell bent on helping destroy religion, how about legalizing murderer? 
You should be fine with that, I mean WTF, you don't seem to have an issue with sexual deviants getting special rights, men in little girls bathrooms, schools giving out buttplugs, Right?

So let's see, since you can't seem to grasp the damage you'll inflict on a functioning society, let's do away with murder laws altogether, I mean it just isn't fair to sociopaths, we're discriminating if we place restrictions on them.
Fair is fair Lib!

Just think of how much fun we can have stalking you?

[Solar]

there is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

Doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

He's playing a part, playing the tool for communist rule. They think if they can break us, we'll give in and give up.
He knows exactly what and why he advocates for sexual perversions, he knows it is the fabric that holds society together.
He's also a communist hiding behind the LIBertarian banner/party, which the Marxists took over nearly a decade ago.

Truth is, he is paid to distract us from the real damage being done by the NWO Communist movement, Musk and everyone exposing their corruption.
Hell, he may even be Chinese, considering he knows zero about our constitution and Founding Principles.

[Solar]

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Well, since you identify with communists, you just might understand this oine when he speaks about the US.


https://rumble.com/embed/v1xg1yy/?pub=17yzhh