"(to  quote a now famous phrase)
 ‘What Does It Matter ?”

 I see the statement saying "religion" but not "Christians" so is the issue specific to that one religion or is it to religion as a whole?

Eegore wrote on 06/05/18 at 14:54:47:


The context of the case clearly implies Christianity. This was not a baker claiming to be a non-practicing Jewish man. Nor a Buddist. This was a man who said being forced to do this was an affront to his Christian beliefs. If the baker was a Muslim and the Colorado commission acted the same way (which of course they wouldn't) then the court should have ruled the exact same way.

WebsterMark wrote on 06/05/18 at 11:30:30:


okay, I haven't been following this thread, as I just don't care much, to me a business, or corporation can't have a religion, aka, businesses and corporations aren't persons, and if they are open to the public, then public accommodation laws are in effect and the business has a legal responsibility to follow them, if they can't, in good conscious, then they shouldn't open a business open to the public, if they can be private clubs or whatever, like where I live, there are bars that only serve alcohol, no food, but they aren't allowed by law, but they are private clubs so you have to join a "club" to drink there, that way they can do what they want.  

anyway, back to Web's post here.

in the past, it was in his historical religion to not consider black people people, that they were unworthy and darned just because they were black.

so, did the words in the bible change, or did culture and education change how the words were interpreted (in either the past or the present)

imo, this baker, and others, are using religion as a scapegoat to unburden themselves of any responsibility of their own bigotry.

Jesus SERVED sinners, why can't this baker?

"Ceremony that Honors the UNNATURAL isn't RIGHT"


 There are tons of people that wouldn't agree with that statement alone.  That in itself would be a 5 page thread.  There's a lot of people, straight religious people that don't think homosexuality is unnatural.  Being a lower percentage doesn't automatically make something "unnatural."  The "ceremony" means absolutely nothing to many people.  There's a lot to argue there.

 There's even more like me that don't care, and don't see why he didn't just take the money and donate it to his church.

Being a lower percentage doesn't automatically make something "unnatural

Not many children are the result of homo sex, is there?

Sex, in nature
Is
Reproductive.

Fine by me