If a tattoo artist is willing to do a tattoo for one person, but is not willing to do the same tattoo for someone else on the basis of , then that person would be in violation of PA law.
“You.” Like I said, I grew up on the church-haven’t been for some time.
I find a lot of the past LDS prophets to be terribly flawed me, so you’re not going to need to start a debate over that-but every church has leaders who act as that church’s mouthpiece of God. That’s all LDS prophets are. Catholics have a very high profile one, I think called a “pope?” I think some have been very good men, and some horribly flawed and corrupt.
Not exactly. The idea was that Jesus, after the resurrection, appeared to those living in America and preached the gospel to them. Joseph Smith found the book and translated it (again, you don’t have to argue the whole thing to me). Every religion has an origin story. That Jesus preached to all people never seemed that far-fetched to me, and doesn’t change the core beliefs. Every denomination has its quirks and things that others find strange-otherwise, there wouldn’t be denomination.
How is radically reinterpreting The Bible a whole lot different than using another piece of scripture that more or less just preaches the same things The Bible does anyway?
Maybe. Uzzah was struck dead by God for doing something with good intentions.
But you would have to ask the Cake Baker. It is his religion that is at issue here.
They’re as stunning on the inside as they are on the outside. I’ve only ever visited the St Louis, Nashville, and Atlanta temples (and it’s been a while), but they really are spectacles.
My parents were married, I believe, at the Salt Lake City temple. I have a cousin who got married there as well, but as you alluded to, only members with a certain standing are allowed to attend the temple ceremony. They had a reception/ceremony for friends and family who either could not make it, or weren’t allowed in.
The point I was making was that, at the most basic level, Mormons are no less Christian than any other denomination or sect. They all have beliefs/practices that SOMEONE else is going to claim are not the “true teachings” of God. Which, again, is why we have so many sects and denomination. They all generally believe the same things-the variations are what separate them.
If he’s not screening every single customer for their intended use, and is not following up to make sure the cake was not used in a sin, then the deeply-held religious belief argument doesn’t fly.
Did he screen the tranny?
Does he screen every customer that comes through his doors to make sure his baked goods aren’t being used in sin?
Does he make sure straight couples have not been divorced prior to them getting married?
Does he make sure there will be no alcohol at weddings?
Does he make sure the soon to be married couple has not been living in sin prior to them getting married?
Does he make sure the bride is not pregnant before the wedding?
We have been over this, the court can’t apply a doctrine or rational consistency test to his faith. If he says he can’t knowingly do something because of his personal faith they can’t say, no that isn’t rational.
My question was…did he screen the tranny? Did he take active measures that were different than the active measures he took with other people?
If a woman came in and ordered a three layer cake, pink layer surrounded by two blue layers, he would likely make it for her. If, however, she said… “This cake celebrates my whorish preference to have sex with two men at once”, then he likely would not. And he would not be discriminating against women because he would have sold her a cake when he was not involved with the activity of celebrating a sin.
But it kinda depends on what is forbidden in his religion.
I’m not asking those things from a legal point of view.
What they court can do, however, is determine what “participation” is and whether he illegally refused to provide a good/service to a person based on protected status.
Clearly. He used that information to discriminate.
“Likely.” Well, we’re going to need that to be put to the test, then.
Not clear to me. If the tranny volunteered the information without the cake baker asking, then the baker took no active action to screen.
You are eager to jump to conclusions.
If the baker would bake the cake without that information, but is unwilling to bake the cake WITH the information, then again, the “deeply held beliefs” argument doesn’t fly. It simply shows that he’s cool with it as long as he doesn’t know. Ignorance is no excuse.
God thanks you for standing in for him in determining what is and what is not a sin.
Irrelevant to the law.
But its not irrelevant to the baker’s religious beliefs… which are not irrelevant to the law.
Umm no. Something he doesn’t know can’t violate his conscience. He wouldn’t be doing it knowingly.
Hello Mr Bartender, I would like a shot of whisky please.
Ok
Hello Mr Bartender I would like a shot of whisky because I like to be drunk when I beat my wife.
No
According to you if the bartender doesn’t ask every customer if they intend to beat their wives he can’t logically possess a strong moral conviction against people beating their wives.
2 Likes
You already tried this before, so what made you think it would fly this time just because you changed it to a bar/whiskey instead of a gun/gun manufacturer/seller?
