To be fair in the Colorado cases. The gay couple didn’t sue Phillips. They filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, saying that Phillips discriminated against them. In the case of the Transgender woman, it was Phillips who sued. Both the gay couple and the transwoman did not file any suit.
That quote says nothing about transgender individuals. Basically the passage is about cross-dressers or transvestites. It says nothing about people with male brains and female chromosomes or female brains with male chromosomes.
Yes, but then it ended up at the SCOTUS because of the way the baker was treated by the Commission.
In this case, the baker was the proactive one due to the obvious harassment he is receiving. I posted earlier in this thread about him receiving calls to make cakes celebrating Satan and such. Of course he’s going to refuse to do that.
So some transgender people cross dress?
Why yes. Yes they do.
The bible doesn’t talk about chromosomes. Those were discovered about 6000 years later.
That’s correct.
It never would have been a 7-2 decision, if the Colorado Commission didn’t express anti-Christian bias.
Government has be NEUTRAL, when it comes to religion.
Everybody deserves a fair trial, even if you feel they are a bigot/racist and so forth.
1 Like
As I said before, the bible says nothing about transgender people. One could easily argue that a transgender coming out of the closet is away of them to STOP SINNING.
At the time it was written, long before gender reassignment surgery was ever thought of, cross dressing was probably what transgender people did.
Orrrrr
Maybe we could get some rocks and stone his ass.
How about we stop trying to draw lines and just let people do what they want?
Calling him a bigot is one thing. Using the law to punish him for it is quite another. He has the right to be a bigot in this country.
You never answered whether you believe Phillips would be within his rights to refuse a custom order cake from a Jewish couple because he disagreed with their religious beliefs.
I believe he would be. Or more accurately should be allowed to make such decisions for his business.
I would be more prone to take arguments against specific PA laws seriously if the person making the argument would just argue that all PA laws should be thrown out, instead of using religious accommodation as a backdoor. I find the argument that “I should be able to serve who I want” more compelling than “I can break the law because I believe a certain religion.”
You are just making stuff up now. He’s never done anything of the sort.
ah the reverse racism tactic…youve lost the argument
the middle ground is simple. If he denied a message hailing satan then he would have broad support. If he denies someone a normal cake because its colored on the inside a certain color, then he doesnt have broad support.
Hahahahaha
Then the baker has no religious ground to stand on.
But he doesn’t have the right to treat people badly because of his bigotry.
because the bible doesn’t use a word that didn’t exist when it was written but instead described the behavior? that’s a lame, weak argument.
